The Montana Capital Blog

Lost in Transition

2008-12-11T15:53:00.004-07:00

So, Erik Iverson is coming home.

The news received precious little attention, even from those who for criticized Denny Rehberg for keeping him on as chief of staff while Erik served as chairman of the Montana GOP.

Perhaps it was the heavy media coverage of the Obama cabinet appointees. Perhaps it was the rush of holiday extravaganzas. Sales galore.

Rehberg's comments regarding Erik's departure were intriguing:

In the press release, Rehberg said, "I greatly appreciate all of Erik's hard work on my behalf and on behalf of our state. It's obvious those efforts have paid off. I wish him the best of luck in the future."

Exactly what Erik's "hard work" yielded to the state (v. himself) are not at all clear. Although Denny says "those efforts have paid off." Should we ask Denny to expalin how they paid off precisely? Perhaps the result is a nice sinecure for Erik.

Erik is back in Montana to work on unspecified projects for Tom Siebel, the zillionaire philanthropist, who has so generously bankrolled the effective Montana Meth Project.

Such a nice story.

Oh, and for those of you concerned about Erik's duties as chair of the GOP?

Not to worry.

He's staying on.

Thank God.

Erik is such an inspiring leader and spokesman for the GOP.

On his watch, the Democrats swept the statewide offices in 2008 for the first time in recent memory. Erik did make some headway in the Legislature: The House has 50 Republicans (v. 50 in 2007) and the Senate has 27 R's (v. 24 in 2007). You may recall that the R's vociferously objected to Sam Kitzenberg changing parties (from R to D) prior to the 2007 session; using the R logic, one could argue the R's had 25 seats in 2007, in which case, the GOP gained a net of exactly 2 seat in 2008.

The R's lost one seat on the 5-member Public Service Commission. {In January, four of the five seats are held by D's.]

Erik's boss (until recently) won another easy victory in November, this one against a dufus, maverick D, who won the D primary and promised not to campaign and, then, actually voted for Denny.

I'll cut Erik some slack on the Kelleher thing.

Fundraising? Through September of this year, the Democratic Party raised $3.4 million to the Iverson juggernaut, that is the Montana GOP, $1.6 million.

So Erik is the guy, either the candidate for Governor or the fellow pulling the strings for Mr. Siebel?

If his track record is any indicator of what lies ahead, this should be fun to watch unfold.

Up In Smoke

2008-12-08T11:23:00.009-07:00

You may remember the movie. The opening scene with Strother Martin's monologue:

"When, boy when are you going to get your act together?
[Burp]
Gross.
Oh good God almighty me.
I think he’s the anti-Christ.
Anthony. I want to talk to you.
Now listen
Don’t walk away from me when I’m talking to you."

In 2009, Jerry Black, a state senator from Shelby, could well be Anthony. [OK. . . perhaps only in terms of the tight script cited above.]

Seems as though Jerry wants to set the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act on its head.

The public in Montana might be mumbling Martin's words before too much longer.

In 2005, the Legislature got its act togehter and banned smoking in public places starting on October 1 of that year. Because of the uproar from small mom and pop establishments, the ban on smoking in stand alone casinos and bars was delayed until October 1, 2009.

The moms and pops had nearly four and one-half years to prepare for the ban. But, now it seems, they don't want to ban smoking in their places at all. As many as 1,400of these places could be exempted from the ban if Black succeeds.

“I think I have to do this,” Darrell Keck, a steakhouse-lounge-casino owners from, you guessed it, Shelby, said. “I don’t really believe this is a smoking issue. It’s a property rights issue.”

There is the code for the wacko fringe: "property rights issue."

No. We sure wouldn't want to deprive owners of their property rights and patrons of their smoking rights.

Bans?!! We don’t need no stinkin’ bans. Burp.

Keck is quite quotable. The story continues:

Unless the law is changed, Keck predicted it will dramatically affect life in small towns, eliminate some bar and casino jobs, cut state tax revenues and deprive smokers of their rights.

“People don’t go into a bar for their health,” Keck said. “If that were the case, I guess they’d be serving booze at the health clubs.”

Black’s bill draft has fired up the same coalition of public health advocates who helped pass the clean indoor air act in 2005. It includes cancer, lung and heart association groups.

To think the Legislature could be so insensitive. The nerve. Our rural way of life is disappearing and all it wants to do is drive a stake into its heart?

Never mind non-smoking patrons and the employees.

Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)

In a game of chance the other night
Old dame fortune was good and right
The kings and queens they kept on comin' around
Aw, I was hittin' em good and bettin' 'em high
But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy
He kept callin' and layin' his money down
See, he'd raise me then I'd raise him
and I'd say to him buddy ya gotta sink or swim
Finally called me but didn't raise the bet!

--Hmmph! I said Aces Full Pal -- I got you!
He said, "I'll pay up in a minute or two
But right now, i just gotta have another cigarette."

Don't worry. "Old dame fortune" will care for them.

The Montana Tavern Association, to its credit, opposes the effort to undo the good-faith compromise worked out in 2005. At least, Keck is willing to put his money where his mouth is. He has retained Jerry Driscoll and Dennis Iverson (Erik's father) to lobby on behalf of the bill. Price tag? $30,000. $30,000 for a bill that even Black says has little chance of passing. [I can hear Driscoll, a prolific smoker in his own right, laughing all the way to the bank.]

Numerous scientific studies have repeatedly documented the toxicity of second-hand cigarette smoke. One such study right here in the Capitol City in 2003 documented the dramatic drop in heart attacks during a six-month smoking hiatus in public places. Opponents of smoking bans picked at the study, but the study's overall conclusion was correct: There is a clear cause and effect relationship between smoking bans and reduced heart attacks.

The public and its representatives has spoken clearly on this matter. Clean air is about health. Any other characterization is a smoke-screen.

Jerry, aka Anthony, "Don't walk away when I'm talking to you. . . ."

Comin'atcha

2008-12-02T14:10:00.004-07:00

For those of old enough to remember, there was once a time that we had a nationwide 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.

Gas lines and gasoline shortages. OPEC.

At Richard Nixon's urging, Congress approved the National Speed Limit Law, which prohibited speeds in excess of 55 mph, in 1974. Even as crude oil prices rose, but gas lines disappeared, in 1987, Congress increased the speed limit to 65 mph. Then, in concert with individual responsibility and personal freedoms sentiment that was running rampant in Congress in the Gingrich days, Congress repealed the Act altogether in 1995 (Crude oil was $17.00 a barrel and regular gasoline cost $1.10/ gallon.) and states were once again allowed to set their own maximum speed limits.

It's safe to say that motorists ignored the speed limit entirely while it was in effect.

You might recall that, when the national law was repealed, Montana had no set maximum, daytime speed limit for the better part of three years. The rule was "reasonable and prudent" and, until the legislature acted to set specific maximum speed limits in 1999, Big Sky County became the laughingstock of the western world. Stories abounded about the United States Autobahn.

Perhaps its time to revive a discussion about the merits of reducing the speed limit, most notably fuel conservation, safety and carbon emissions.

For those who believe we can make the biggest dent in our dependence on foreign sources of crude oil through conservation, reducing the speed limit is one major initiative that could make a huge difference.

For those who say they will do anything to reduce carbon emission so long as it does not harm the economy and competitiveness of the United States in world markets, welcome aboard.

The only real cost here is time, extra time spent driving the vast, open spaces of the Treasure State. Scholars call it 'psychological adjustment.' For us lay people, it's called personal sacrifice.

Let the battle of statistics begin.

Yes, time is worth something. How much?

Yes, slower speed limits appear to conserve fuel. How much?

Consumer Reports tested the effect of higher speeds on gas mileage. David Champion, director of auto testing, found that boosting the highway speed of a 2006 Toyota Camry cut gasoline mileage dramatically:

•55 m.p.h. – 40.3 miles per gallon

•65 m.p.h. – 34.9 miles per gallon

•75 m.p.h. – 29.8 miles per gallon

On a hypothetical 1,900-mile round trip from New York City to Disney World in Florida, the Camry would use 47 gallons of gas at 55 m.p.h.. But at 75 m.p.h., it would burn nearly 64 gallons – a $70 difference.

One of the most amusing arguments against reducing the speed limit is enforcement. With the speed limit at 55 mph, some observers estimated that approximately 4,000 lives a year were spared. 4,000. Evidently, the concern is that there will be a dangerous mix of drivers who obey and drivers who ignore a reduced speed limit. If Montana were to reduce the speed limit with the token $5.00 energy conservation penalty for speeding violations, these concerns are likely well-founded.

Lower speed limits appear to save lives. How many?

There has been no real serious discussion abou this idea in recent times.

Nor is it likely to see that light of day in Helena. After all, although not protected in the constitution like the right to bear arms, driving as fast as one wants to is a sacred right in Montana.

The Fighter Still Remains

2008-11-26T17:02:00.009-07:00

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.

Winning Ugly

2008-11-26T13:04:00.007-07:00

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.

Hold that Thought

2008-11-23T16:12:00.005-07:00

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.

Good Work if You Can Get It

2008-11-23T11:09:00.003-07:00

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.

And, That's the Way It Is

2008-11-21T16:47:00.002-07:00

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.

Don't Fence Me In

2008-11-09T12:17:00.004-07:00

“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.

Tuesday's Election: Win. Win.

2008-11-08T09:06:00.009-07:00

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.

Out of Sight!

2008-11-04T10:15:00.005-07:00

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.

Trvial Pursuit

2008-11-02T08:50:00.002-07:00

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.

Hope Is a Good Thing

2008-10-31T16:14:00.004-06:00

Is it just me or is this election dragging on and on and on to the finish line? This one, like no other I can recall, is wearing thin.

Perhaps it’s the anticipation of a real change.

There is a genuine sense of hopefulness that would endure with Barack in the White House. Perhaps it’s that everyone, including a lot of R’s, can hardly wait to run out into the streets and shriek to the sky, “It’s over! It’s over! It’s finally over.”

Deep down inside, D’s have to be bracing for yet another disappointment. Let’s get it over with and just win.

Been there, done that.

D’s have been disappointed before. Michael Moore penned a nice column a day before the 2004 election. Amazing how little things have changed, at least for the better.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-11-01

The only thing worse than the hopelessness that would accompany a McCain win is the sinking feeling that within months after an Obama victory, the whole shebang will fire up again. Mitt and Sarah and Huck will from exploratory committees for 2012.

Look. GW blew it. He got exactly what he wanted for the first 6 years (and, frankly, too much during the last two) of his reign.
And, where are we now? Hmmmmm.
Is there anything that isn’t broken, anything that actually works, sort of, kind of?

Foreign policy?
Military preparedness?
Financial institutions?
Economy?
Health care?
Energy?
Housing?
Education?
Civil rights?
Infrastructure?

Are we better off in any regard than we were eight years ago?

When the right says Obama is a communist and a socialist, what does that infer about the goodness of Bush. He’s a proven loser.

"Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist," we’re warned. [Actually he’s a Protestant.]

But, George is the true terrorist.

Given his chance by the Supreme Court in 2000, he not only blew IT. He BLEW IT UP.

Our hopes, our country, our way of life, our future.

His economic policies, whatever they were, cannot even be labeled “trickle down,” because they didn’t even accomplish that. Instead, wealth was transferred in a unprecedented manner to the most wealthy amongst us. [Mind you, they don’t live by us. Certainly not. When they go home a steel gate clangs shut as they drive into their gated communities and the ocean tickles the sands on their own get-away islands.]

The richest nation in the history of the world is now the biggest debtor.

Americans, young and old alike, are fearful. They're worried, fatigued.

McCain is a shining example of Bush’s preferred crowd “have more’s.” He’s not certain how many homes he has. Many Americans are worried about how to keep just one.

Not many voters who supports McCain discuss their support openly. No one I’ve talked to who plans to vote for McCain has actually cited a reason to vote “for” John McCain, other than he is not George Bush. A ringing endorsement.

Shamed and departed are Rumsfeld, Tenet, Ashcroft, Scooter, Gonzales, Rove. Cheney will be joining them before long. Each flaunted the constitution and repeatedly broke the public trust.

Abramoff, Chalabi, and Haliburton were in it for the dough, the play, the kick-back, plain and simple.

George couldn’t always enunciate words and expressions correctly, but he and his minions gave clarity to ones to fear, e.g. water-boarding, presidential signing statements, healthy forests, clear skies, FISA, and FEMA emergency response

Guantonomo hasn’t been in the news so much since 1962 and the Bay of Pigs.

Along the way, did anyone keep track of how many times the apologists blamed failures of this bunch on Clinton? You know, Bill. The Clinton recession. The attack on the USS Cole. A budget balanced, yes, but by Newt Gingrich.

Many argued that we should get George. We tried in 2004 and failed.

Between election, we just couldn’t figure out the correct constitutional arguments. Perhaps we were simply too cerebral. Late last year, a car parked on Last Chance Gulch bore a bumper sticker: “Will someone please hurry up give Bush a blowjob so start the impeachment?”

Could it have been so simple?

Enough already.

It’s hard to imagine there are actually folks out there who fear giving the keys to the White House to Obama.

“All that we’re saying is give peace a chance.” John Lennon.

And, give hope a chance for a change.

Perfection: Life Really is too Short

2008-10-31T11:43:00.001-06:00

RAVENNA, Mich. (WZZM) - Teammates in his bowling league think after rolling a perfect 300 game Don Doane's heart just gave out.

"You get nervous shooting a 300," says teammate Todd Place. "The pressure keeps building," says bowling alley owner Jim Nutt.

Minutes after achieving the life long goal of a perfect game the 62 year old bowler collapsed and died at Ravenna Bowl in Ravenna. "Don just collapsed," says alley owner Nutt. " At first we thought he just fainted." "Then when I rolled him over I realized it wasn't good," says teammate Place.

The teammates say he was giving a high-five minutes before. They tried to revive him but Doane never spoke another word. He died of what was apparently a massive heart attack "He looked fine, reached across the table and gave me a high-five and he fell over," says Place.

"I think he died by the time he hit the floor." Don Doane was a member of the "Nutt Farm" bowling team at Ravenna Bowl for 45 years. His teammates says its strange not to see him on league nights.

"It was like a book, a final chapter," says Place. "He threw his 300 game with all of his friends, gave each other high-fives and it's like the story ended. He died with a smile on his face."

"Don will be a legend," says Nutt. 'It's something that will never be forgotten as long as people bowl here." Ravenna Bowl is planning a memorial ceremony for Doan's' wife Linda and son Chad.

Polls and Crusading Liars

2008-10-30T19:43:00.008-06:00

There’s an intriguing poll out there.

The University of Texas interviewed 600 Americans who call the Lone Star State home.

Barack Obama's religion has been the subject of much discussion in the media. Though Obama is a practicing Protestant, well-publicized emails and word of mouth campaigns inaccurately identifying him as a Muslim have been circulated since the early days of his candidacy. In order to gauge public awareness of Obama's religion, we asked respondents, "What do you believe Barack Obama's religion to be?" A plurality, 45.5%, chose the "Protestant" option, and 28 % couldn't say. Twenty percent, however, said that Obama is a Muslim.
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu./11_1_2.html

No telling why so many must figure Barack to be a “Muslim.” Don’t suppose it's his name, do you?

The Bush bunch has worked hard to create a rich environment in which to pigeon-hole and then either hate or love, (mostly fear) one another. Wars have a way of doing that, you know.

It seems that too many Americans feel stereotypes are OK, again. It's a short-cut for those who spend more watching NASCAR and sharin' huntin' stories than they do with their kids. Ugly and hateful words, terms and expressions that went away with flat-top haircuts, and others with bell-bottom pants, are back and unfortunately have found a way into the public debate with reactionary, right-wing Republicans.

But, a Muslim as President? Not yet. But, Some day it will happen.

Speaking of names, shortly after his election, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected (so far) to Congress, the religious right began a crusade to prevent him from being seated. Something about not placing his hand on the Bible, instead choosing the Quran, when he was to be sworn in.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53345

Fortunately, the crusade went no where and Congressman-elect Ellison (D - Minnesota) was sworn in as a member of the Class of 2007.

Actually, Mr. Ellison was not sworn in on the Quran and no incoming members of Congress place their hand on the Bible. Everyone is sworn in together during a private ceremony without any religious text. It’s only during a ceremonial photo-op that a book is brought out.

The Class of 2007 also includes two Buddhists, Hank Johnson (D- Georgia) and Mazie Hirono (D – Hawaii). They did not use a book at the public ceremony, as there is no book in Buddhism equivalent to the Bible or the Quran.

Was there a word of concern about them? Nope. [The crusaders were trying to understand the meaning of “ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmm.”]

Jews? [I can hear the muttering of the crusaders, "You know, they only hold their hand on the Old Testmaent." Or, "they're OK. After all, I suppose, they aren't Muslims."]

Agnostics and atheists? [They were wily enough to cross the fingers on their left hand.]

So, why followers of Islam? In the article cited above, Judge Moore explains: “ . . . common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine.”

You know: Islam faith = Muslim followers = Islamic terrorists.

[And, for the record, in March 2008, another Muslim, Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana was elected to Congress. No word as to which, if any book, he used.]

Perhaps that’s one more reason McCain crusades to wage the wars against terrorism for 100 years: To keep Americans who worship Allah out of Congress, and presumably any other deliberative bodies, too.

The Crusades, seems there were five (some say more)of them (back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back, if you’re keeping score), began in 1096 and lasted continuously for almost exactly 200 years. 200!).

The Christians took the fight to whom? Muslims. Moslems. And, which country is waging a war in two countries that are predominantly Muslim?

[In case you don't know: The Shiites and Sunni (yes, the very the same sects who are at one another's throats these days in Iraq) were fighting between and among themselves during the Crusades even as they tried to ward off invaders from the West, 700 hundred years ago. And, they've have been at it ever since.]

Larry Craig - The Accidental Tourist

For far too long, Americans denied people of color and women the right to vote. In 2008, the R's are crusading to prevent people of color from voting through registration challenges. One by one, the challenges have been turned back by the courts. But, none of this is new.

The United States has a shameful and dismal history on civil rights, both at home and abroad. For the past eight years, George W, like the Christians in bygone days, has attempted to outsource our version of "human rights," while denying basic rights to Americans here at home. Unlike his wars abroad, the President and his adorers on the fringe right have relied on bipartisan 'support' to do so.

It's a sick message that spews from AM talk radio, pounding the airwaves daily with diatribes: We should discrimintate against someone in the workplace because of his/ her sexual preference and deny them basic rights heterosexual couples enjoy.

For years, the religious right demonized Barney Frank, the long-time, openly gay Congressman from Massachussetts (D). It took awhile, but Congress welcomed the “first open lesbian” to be elected, Tammy Baldwin (D – Wisconsin). In January, they will most likely be joined by Jared Polis, a Democrat running in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, where Democrats in the district outnumber Republicans by 32,000 voters.

[There are an awful lot of "D’s" by these names above each pigeon-hole.]

I wasn’t surprised when Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho [the first “R” in the list], accidentally “outed” himself at the airport in the Twin Cities. I suppressed the cynic in me and hoped he would not resign, embrace his gay identity, and like other members of Congress before him, find his voice in supporting efforts to approve same sex marriage, outlawing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, and eliminating the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

No such luck. The apple farmer not only remained. So did his strident anti-gay positions.

Despite early, but cautious, optimism and the capable leadership of Frank and Baldwin, bills to ban workplace discrimination have not passed this Congress. This, despite the fact that more than 85 percent of the Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, as do 17 states and many local governments.

Same-sex couples still do not enjoy the same constitutional protections that opposite-sex couples enjoy.

And, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Don’t ask.

Blame the Republicans? Others say elect Democrats who support gay rights first; then, work on the R’s.

Come January 2009, Democrats will hold larger Congressional majorities and, most likely, the Presidency. The question is: Can Congress approve any type of civil rights legislation with sizable majorities and have it signed into law? Or, will it be more of the same, high hopes?

As the song goes, "When troubles call, and your backs to the wall
There a lot to be learned, that wall could fall." It might someday, but not as long as names and stereotypes guide and cloud the thinking of so mnay members of Congress.

Homophobism is found in both parties, although it is more pervasive within the Republican party.

“There is a longstanding hypocrisy of anti-gay conservatives like Rick Santorum and Mel Martinez employing openly gay senior staff. While in D.C., seemingly anti-gay members of Congress work shoulder-to-shoulder with gays and lesbians and seek their counsel on policy matters. But when back home in their districts, they endorse all manner of anti-gay measures.”

McCain is a case in point. His chief of staff, Mark Buse, is openly gay. And, yet, McCain vigorously supports California’s Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage and, when he been present and voted, has opposed every pro-gay legislation contemplated by this Congress.

If Congressmen Ellison and carson actually have a “Muslim agenda” and can match the successes of their gay and lesbian Congressional counterparts, the religious right has very little to fear in the next Congress.

And, John, you don't have to keep up the expense of an Islamic war for cover.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

2008-10-29T16:19:00.011-06:00

The debate over “gravel pits” in the 2007 legislative session barely scratched the surface over the interests of two immovable forces: property-owners who want to develop (rock) and property-owners (hard place) who want things as they are.

Each group is ready for a fight.

Everyone agrees: We must have sand, gravel and aggregate.

Industry deserves certainty in the regulatory framework. But while Michael Kakuk has enjoyed a string of successes in court, industry cannot [and should not] count on the crap shoot called the judicial system.

Industry must meet tight timetables specified in the contracts it successfully bids a project. It bids each job on the basis of where it will mine and process the needed materials. A key variable is transportation costs and securing sand, gravel aggregate as close to the project.

For smaller projects, like foundations for homes and businesses, bids are based on the materials coming from existing “gravel pits.” For larger projects, such as highway construction and reconstruction, it depends on the math.

The Montana and United States Departments of Transportation are unforgiving in their contractual requirements. The contractor must perform at the price it bids, no if’s, and’s or but’s. In the case of Knife River and the reconstruction project of US 93 south of Missoula it secured, transportation costs were calculated on mining and processing the materials at a site owned by Ken Allen just north of Lolo.

Responding to the well-organized opposition of adjacent property-owners, the Missoula County Commission imposed interim zoning disallowing the “gravel pit.” Knife River was forced to provide the materials needed for the project from its location near the north end of Reserve Street in Missoula and was stuck with “eating” significantly more miles (and costs) for transportation. Knife River says it absorbed $500,000 in costs. Because of deadlines imposed, coupled with the time required to process an open cut permit, it did not have the option of securing materials from another site.

At the time, Knife River had a permit pending with the DEQ for the Lolo location. As in every other permit it had filed previously, Knife River had every confidence it would receive the permit for the preferred location. The only thing that stopped it was the intervention of the county commission.

The county commission really forced a statute to fit the circumstance and acted to safeguard the rights, interests, health of property-owners and the environment. And, as in so many instances, there was a “loser.” To the tune of $500,000. No company can absorb costs of that magnitude and remain profitable. And, remember, this is only one example.

Obviously, there must be certainty in the process, but for everyone.

The industry really would prefer to focus on what it does best: Make money by supplying materials essential to build Montana. Property-owners would just as soon they do the same. In far too many other cases, property-owners, public health and safety and the environment have absorbed the “costs.”

Unfortunately, their futures are inextricably linked.

So what types of property owners are affected?

Suburbanites, the ones located fairly close to cities, where the permitted expansions of “gravel pits” are encroaching on the backyards and front yard views and placing heavy truck traffic on access routes. In most cases, homeowners mistakenly felt they were “far enough away.” In many of these cases, it’s ‘the buyer beware.’

Rural property-owners in thought to be remote, pristine areas, most often along rivers, a mix of old-timers and newcomers. Here, the issue is one of either the permitting and opening of new “gravel pits” or (2) the and re-opening of others that stood dormant for years or only operated sporadically (or both).

Property-owners just sort of get used to the eyesore that dormant “gravel pits” are. But, when they suddenly re-open, watch out! [This process reminds me of the cicada in the Midwest. This locust-type insect appears only in 2-to-3-year or 13-to-17-year cycles. They appear, make a lot of noise and a hell of a mess and then recede; but, everyone knows they will return – eventually.]

“When will you make an end of it?”

That was the question reportedly posed each day by Pope Julius II of Michelangelo, who was painting the Sistine Chapel.

A “gravel pit” is certainly no masterpiece, far from it.

But, the question is applicable and fair.

Just how long is the jagged scar to remain until restored and reclaimed? The permit covering each “gravel pit” specifies reclamation requirements, but hundreds of pits remain unreclaimed. Why?

The existing regulatory framework doesn’t work. Each side is not lacking for an opinion about how to “fix” it. But, they aren’t talking to one another.

So, the Legislature is rightfully expected to fix this and attempt to balance the competing values and conflicting priorities. In other words, it will occupy the place between that rock and the hard place. So much to know and so little time.
Legislators are elected by voters who not work for industry, but by just as many who lives and lifestyle may be destroyed. Hopefully, they will listen to both points of view. [Reminder: Property-owners do not have lobbyists.]

If you expect a resolution that protects propert-owners, don’t hold your breath.

In 2009, it will be entertaining to watch two legislators, both Republicans, in particular.

Garry Perry, a holdover senator from Manhattan, who reportedly lives near a proposed “gravel pit,” has filed a bushel-load (six to be exact) bill draft requests to revise the open cut laws.

Bill Nooney, a state representative from Missoula, whose election is anything but guaranteed if Bill Vaughn (darkacres.com) has his way.

http://www.darkacres.com/

Nooney, you see, is trying to play both sides. He has accepted money from MCA, but supported the Missoula County Commission interim zoning that stopped the Lolo “gravel pit” dead in its tracks. The race will be close.

If he does manage to win, he may feel he is joining 149 others in the squeeze. It is more likely that Rep. Nooney will be fed into legislative crusher or batch plant.

Pave Paradise and Put up a Parking Lot

2008-10-28T14:25:00.009-06:00

This fall, I took the family to Yellowstone National Park. Breathtaking.

The most intriguing stop was at the Artist and Foundation mudpots. They spew and spit a thick brackish pudding, ranging in colors from a smokey gray to grizzly bear brown. Bubbling is periodically is interrupted by a belch, where the devilish stuff is hurled, coming perilously close to curious onlooker who venture too near.

As I hoisted my son onto my shoulders, it occurred to me that public policy issues also simmer along and then suddenly belch onto an unsuspecting public. And, like the odor at the pots in the Park, the contents are usually accompanied by a rotten egg smell.

One such issue that is about to belch is "gravel pit" siting and regulation.

Like the mudpots, the issue of where we mine gravel, aggregate and sand quietly seethed until late 2006.

Let's face it: Some parts of Montana have been “discovered.” More folks want to join us. They want houses, streets, sidewalks, school buildings, playgrounds and shopping centers. All of these require either concrete or asphalt, or both.

The primary ingredients, sand, gravel and aggregate, come from sites that range from huge excavations of several hundred acres to huge holes occupying several acres. Gravel is present in only a comparatively small number of places, most often on the alluvial river valley floors and glacial valleys.

The tough part is exactly where the pits are to be located, permitted and operated.

If you do not live adjacent to or on an access road leading to and from one of them, life in paradise is wonderful. If you are unfortunate enough to live in the wrong place, watch out. You’re about to be spattered.

Perfect Storm

Sand and gravel, like all of our resources, is finite. Rapid growth and the sharp escalation in demand require that more of the stuff be mined. When the gravel begins to play out, operators have three primary options: expand an existing “ gravel pit,” re-open and old one, or open a new one.

A couple of facts. More than half of Montana’s existing “gravel pits” are operated by a governmental entity, principally counties.

Political and judicial battles are being waged in four fast-growth counties: Lewis and Clark; Gallatin; Missoula and Flathead counties. It is here that the demand for materials and property rights intersect. Under permits that are supposed to be granted by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), "gravel pits" are expanding and new ones are either opening or are on the drawing board.

The only thing that will slow the onslaught is an economic downturn of the type Bush and his greedy "haves" have brought us.

Homeowners wring their hands and shake their heads in disbelief that their life savings may be wiped out because of a de-valuation of property resulting from the presence of a “gravel pit.” There’s the dust, the heavy-duty truck traffic, the smell, the dust, the noise, and the eyesore, plus, the impact of the operation on the water table and the fine, invisible mica particulates on the health of children. County commissioners, with very little legal authority, are the ones caught in the middle, trying to balance property rights of those own adjacent or nearby with who own the land and want to develop the gravel deposits it holds.

Here is where it gets interesting.

The Open Cut Mining Law was enacted in 1971, when “gravel pits” were just that, a pit. In those simpler, slower times, a dump truck might appear several times a day and the driver would load it with a front-end loader and leave. The law today remains pretty much as written, now, some 37 years ago. Oh, wait, the legislature "streamlined" it, along with MEPA which was entirely gutted in 2001, a few times to meet the "concerns" of industry. Property-owners, remember, don't have lobbyists.

The industry and the technologies it uses to operate, of course, have not stood still. The law barely allows for real regulation of the actual on-the-ground operations.

In 2008, “gravel pits” are still sources of sand, gravel and aggregate all right. But, they have become major industrial operations in their own right. Crushers, batch plants, asphalt plants, along with belly dumps and dump trucks (making dozens of trips each day), dozers and loaders, are strategically located throughout each site and operated the maximum number of hours to offset the massive capital investments these machines and operations represent. Each movement is carefully choreographed. A veritable beehive of activity.

Historically, the business community, including the Montana Contractor’s Association (MCA), which most of our state's contractors belong to, have sided with efforts to protect property rights. Like Governor George Wallace once said, “A man’s home is his castle.”

Message: Don’t mess with me, my family and my property. Land use planning and zoning are bad for property-owners and an infringement on property rights.

In fact, during the late 80’s and early 90’s, the Legislature dealt with “takings,” where the right wing argued that property-owners should be reimbursed if their fortunes were adversely affected by action of a governmental entity. Now that industry is butting against real property-owners whose lives and well-being, both financially and physically, are being drastically altered, they have changed their tune. Never mind those quarrelsome property-owners.

The rights of industrial interests and businesses apparently trump those of homeowners and small-fry property-owners.

In his nasally, snotty commentary on KUFM in May 2008, Cary Hegreberg, the director of the MCA, called the impacts of these industrial operations an “inconvenience." In reference to a gravel pit that was denied a permit by the Missoula County Commissioners, he said, “In this era of enlightened environmentalism, the state agency charged with protecting air quality and conserving natural resources is forcing a company to unnecessarily to burn an extra 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel so as to not inconvenience a few people who sent letters and attended hearings.”

[It must noted that the letterhead inadvertently contains the wrong year in the date on the MCA letter with a verbatim transcript of his remarks. It says "2009," perhaps an indication of things to come.]

http://www.montax.org/index.php?pr=comment_cary_nov

Cary and his legions don’t want “govmint” to meddle and 'regalte.' No, instead, modifying a slogan from an insurance company (another industry whose reputation has been sullied to the point most of us would rather put our faith in the word of a used car salesman), he says the industry can self-regulate, through something called a “Good Neighbor Policy.” We promise to be good. No, really. Trust us.

Sounds good on paper. "Gosh, honey, do you think for once industry will truly be compassionate and caring? And, take care of us?"

[If there is any doubt about the political leanings of the MCA, with several exceptions, in 2008, it sent the maximum campaign contribution of $160.00 to only Republican candidates for the legislature. Check with the Commissioner of Political Practices for a complete listing.]

In fairness, there are a few good industry operators who really do care about how their operations affect property-owners. They work hard to make the best of a bad situation.

But, just as fairly, there are far more who do not.

They routinely violate the terms and conditions of their permits. And, if adjacent property-owners complain about noise and dust and hours of operations (you get the idea), the DEQ has no staff to investigate in a timely and effective manner.

The DEQ cannot actually deny an open cut permit. It may require the applicant to rework the application until each deficiency is corrected. [Consequently, in a sick kind of way, the state employees, who are supposed to regulate the industry, become consultants to the industry.]

The DEQ Director, Richard Opper, is a nice man and competent administrator. In 2005, he inherited an underfunded agency in complete disarray. The Stephens, Racicot and Martz bunch had underfunded and turned it (and its predecessor agencies) into a rubber stamp for all sorts of permits (air; water; landfill; gravel; you name it) from industry applicants. In fact, the permit applicants were referred to as "customers." The Open Cut program was no exception.

Opper dutifully attended to the other squeaking wheels of the agency. He might have made it to the Open Cut had it not been for a booming construction economy and an insatiable demand for sand, gravel and aggregate. Old sites were playing out, forcing industry to start expanding existing "gravel pits" or opening new ones in what were once "remote" locations. Where homeowners had plunked down big bucks to have their slice of paradise, not knowing what lay beneath: Sand. Gravel Aggregate.

Suddenly, the industrial age in all of its glory arrived. In backyards, across the road or just down the road a piece. And, the back-up alarms began clanging a half-hour before sunrise every day. The dust and noise followed. "Honey. I just listed our property . . ."

Like a wave, it hit, starting in late 2006. First in Missoula. Then, in the Flathead. Lewis and Clark. And, more recently, Gallatin County, which is now the apparent epicenter. Because of a huge backlog of permits in Gallatin County, industry went to court, arguing the DEQ was in violation of the 60-day timetable ("streamlined" by industry to make a meaningful environmental review nearly impossible) spelled out in state law. And, it won. Over and over again.

The facts and findings of each case varied, but the courts generally ordered the DEQ to grant permits that had been reviewed by DEQ and found to be incomplete. In others, the court ordered that even permits that were in the initial stages of review to be granted without regard to the potential impact on public health and safety and the environment.

In Missoula, a proposed "gravel pit" just west of town near the historic Council Groves was opposed and stopped by a group of citizens. The proposal was so bad that even some industry groups quietly assisted in its demise. In another case, using emergency zoning, the county commission stopped a proposed "gravel pit" slated to be opened just north of Lolo. It is during the fight over this "gravel pit" that Hegreberg penned and uttered the missive cited above.

At about this time, legislators weighed in. The Legislative Audit Committee ordered a performance audit. To no one's surprise, the audit was an indictment. Among other findings, the audit disclosed the Open Cut program was in such disarray that, while the auditors felt there might be a need for additional staff, there were insufficient management systems in place to measure the workload to make the case.

Sensing a political advantage, in 2007, the industry convinced Ralph Heinert, a Republican from Libby, to introduce a bill (HB 557) that would have completely emasculated what little power county commissioners over where "gravel pits" are excavated and operated. The bill eked through the House with almost every Republican vote along the way, only to meet a timely and fortunate death in the Senate.

So, where does that leave us two months before the '09 session?

Stay tuned.

Oh, and don't worry. Paradise is still being paved, just not as fast. But, not because of regulation. It's the George Bush economy.

Mr. Schweitzer Goes to Washington

2008-10-27T17:27:00.007-06:00

It seems unlikely, but, just what if Brian Schweitzer were to go to Washington, DC?

Stranger things have happened. Like Sarah Palin being picked to be #2.

The speculation is based on the long-known fact that Schweitzer will win with with around 62 percent of the vote and the increasing likelihood that Obama will win.

The dog days of October are upon us.

Schweitzer would probably not leave prior to the '09 session. After all, Obama is not sworn in until January 20, 2009. Between November 7 and January 20, Obama would most certainly name his top Cabinet posts before: State; Defense; Health and Human Services; Homeland Security. After the first of the year, it's anybody's guess.

Yes, like you, I have read the stories: Brian “ain’t gonna be nobody’s secretary.” But, there other positions called “director” and “commissioner.” If Schweitzer were to accept something other than cabinet level position, it would have to be something extraordinary. Ambassador? Brian Schweitzer? Nahhhhh.

OK. So, he misspoke and agrees to lower himself into “that cesspool” as he called Washington (DC) politics in his first year as Governor. It's interesting that Brian has not repeated that quote, evidently being sensitive to the Democratic Congressional majorities.

So, let's say Schweitzer is on the short lists for Agriculture, Energy and Interior.

Then what?

There would be loads of speculation, replete with fanfare and Brian Schweitzer in the middle. Can't you just hear the quotes and sound bites?

Two places outline the process of gubernatorial succession: The Montana Constitution and state law to implement the constitution.

The constitution actually does not say the lieutenant governor becomes governor when there is a vacancy.

Article VI, Section 2 says “ . . . the offices of governor and lieutenant governor are voted upon together in primary and general elections.”

Article VI deals with vacancies in (2) the office of lieutenant governor or (2) both the office of governor and office lieutenant governor simultaneously.

Article VI. Section 6. Vacancy in office. (1) If the office of lieutenant governor becomes vacant by his succession to the office of governor, or by his death, resignation, or disability as determined by law, the governor shall appoint a qualified person to serve in that office for the remainder of the term. If both the elected governor and the elected lieutenant governor become unable to serve in the office of governor, succession to the respective offices shall be as provided by law for the period until the next general election. Then, a governor and lieutenant governor shall be elected to fill the remainder of the original term.

Summary: If the office of lieutenant becomes vacant, the governor appoints the successor for the remainder of the term. If both offices are vacant simultaneously, state law kicks in.

Not just a good idea, it's the law.

2-16-511. Vacancy in office of governor and lieutenant governor. (1) If the offices of both the governor and the lieutenant governor become vacant, the president of the senate shall become governor and shall appoint a lieutenant governor. (2) If the president of the senate is unable to assume the office of governor, the speaker of the house shall become governor and a lieutenant governor shall be elected in accordance with the provision of 2-16-512.

While this is not going to happen in this eventuality, the law underscores the importance of the majority party in both the Senate and House if it ever were to occur. [Under a tragic series of events guys like Bob Keenan, Doug Mood and Scott Sales could have been governor. We can only shudder about whom they would have appointed as their #2.]

Scenarios

1. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican, ascends; Bohlinger appoints his choice of lieutenant governor. [Are you kidding? Schweitzer is still in control, baby.]

2. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican ascends and appoints his successor that is actually (but, unofficially) Schweitzer’s choice. ["]

3. Before Schweitzer resigns, Bohlinger, a Republican, ‘retires’ to spend more time with his bride; Schweitzer appoints his choice to succeed Bohlinger; after a cooling off period, Schweitzer resigns; the newly-appointed governor ascends and names his successor who is actually (but, not officially) Schweitzer’s choice. [" "!]

There are other variations, but you get the drift.

Regardless, Brian Schweitzer, the sly, coy one, doesn’t just ride off into the sunrise. [Riding east to DC and ‘into the sunset’ are not possible.] The only thing Schweitzer likes more than self-promotion is speculation that promotes Brian Schweitzer. Just as he has so far, he will play it for all it’s worth, even if he not a serious candidate.

So, then, who is #2 in a Bohlinger administration?

Which Way is the Wind Blowing? Really?

2008-10-27T14:10:00.006-06:00

Montana is blessed with abundant natural resources. You name the resource, we’ve either still got it (or had it).

Timber. Copper. Silver. Gold. Coal. Wind.

The mindset of those who controlled Montana’s economy,either by size or force, was to take first and rarely answer questions later.

Not sure?

Just ask all of the American Indian nations, the First Montanans.

We’ve always been a colony for buyers elsewhere.

The Last Chancers hit a Mother Lode and the gold rush brought miners by the thousands. They dug, they placered, they built Helena, Virginia City and Nevada City. But, the real wealth left the state.

Our ancestors mined, smelted and refined copper in Montana. There were a lot of good jobs, but the real wealth left the state.

We cut down our forests, milled and processed the logs and sent them elsewhere. And, the real wealth left the state.

We’ve dug up coal and railed it to utilities for them to produce black electrons. We built electrical generation plants next to the coal and generated our own electrons and sent them elsewhere. And, with the coal and power, the real wealth left the state.

Some want to bring coal bed methane to the surface, extract the methane and pipe it to customers elsewhere. When that happens, the real wealth will leave the state.

Heck, for a time, we even mined vermiculite bagged it and sent it to places around the world. The tragedy is that we poisoned the entire community of Libby and killed innocent workers and their neighbors and most likely many of the end users. But, here too, the real wealth still left the state.

America’s and Canada’s industrial consumers need more electricity. We already send sixty percent of our power out of state. And, as loyal colonists, we will build thousands of wind generators, harness the wind and ship the power out of state to them. And, just as with the other developments, the real wealth will leave the state.

In most cases, Montana was left with the crumbs of wealth and our backyards full of the debris left behind by the agents of the wealthy. The pits, the stretches of rivers and ponds laden with toxic waste are now called “Superfund” sites. The good news? A little of that wealth that left us is coming back is coming back to us from the US Treasury (without interest) to help clean up the messes.

We should be happy. After all, the “restoration economy,” as it is called, provides jobs. Jobs necessitated to fix the mistakes of the past.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Sure we want to develop and diversify our economy. But, on whose terms? And, for whose benefit?

Within the past decade, we embarked on developing a “new” resource, wind energy. Clean, renewable and abundant. Next to north Texas, Montana has some of the best wind resources in the country.

The Judith Gap wind farm is the centerpiece.

The region around Cut Bank is next.

Just where else depends.

This is complex stuff.

For as much wind as we have, there is one irrefutable fact: The wind does not blow all of the time everywhere in Montana, or elsewhere for that matter.

We are learning from Mother Nature (finally). If you build forty wind generators in the same wind shed, when the wind stops blowing, all forty generators stop (or slow down) at the same time.

Lesson: Perhaps we ought to create a distributive system and build the wind generators in groups of four or five in different, “good wind” areas. The challenge here is to get the power onto the grid and move it from the point of production to the point of consumption.

Now, not everyone is sold on this renewable energy “thing.” Detractors say, we told you wind power was going to be more expensive than hydro- and thermal-generated power. (They are armed with a bushel-basket of “concerns,” usually provide by the utility and coal mining lobbies.)

As for price, they’re correct. It is more expensive.

In order to keep the lights on the engines of industry humming, we have to go through a very expensive process to “firm” the power supply when the wind stops or slows down.

Firming, or ancillary, power it’s called. Nationwide, this power is derived from both renewable sources (hydropower) and, in more cases, non-renewable (coal-fired; natural gas fired generators).

In Montana, the principal supply of firming power comes from hydropower sources (dams) in Idaho. Because of the variability of winds conditions, our utilities, most notably Northwestern Energy) buys the power with a contract with Idaho Power for prices you would pay on the open, spot market versus lower-cost, long-term prices.

The point is that ancillary power is expensive.

Despite the fact that Montana has thermal-plants (Colstrip) and dams (Missouri and Clark Fork Rivers), we have import expensive power, from Idaho? Yes. Remember Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL – Montana)? (Yes, and here, too, the real wealth leaves the state.) It owns most of the power-generating facilities. Northwestern Energy can actually get a better “deal” from Idaho Power.

Many Montanans want more energy from renewable sources and say they will pay more for it. How much more is a matter of great political conjecture.

In 2005, the Montana Legislature passed legislation mandating that certain threshold percentages of Montana’s energy ‘portfolio’ come from renewable sources by specified years. The requirements of the law are not nearly as important as the insufficient legislative concern over climate change. Had it known then what it knows now, the bills likely would have been amended:

1. to speed up the timetable and specify higher percentages of energy to be derived from renewable sources in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce the consumption of finite fossil fuels; or

2. to lengthen the timetable and substantially lower the percentages, arguing the costs of meeting the targets are too high and may put Montana’s economy at a competitive disadvantage.

[The debate over climate change and our renewable resources future hopefully will result in a debate and agreement about an energy policy for Montana.]

In the meantime, once it is constructed, we will send electricity, initially from black [coal fired] and, then, supposedly, increasingly from green electrons [wind farms], to power the massive coal shale and coal tar plants in northern Alberta via the Montana Alberta Tie Line. Known as the MATL Line (line is redundant), it is Governor Schweitzer's baby. His clean and green legislation, enacted in 2007, lowered property taxes (depriving school districts of much-needed tax revenues) sufficiently to make it feasible. It is a tax giveaway, pure and simple.

Rube Goldberg would be proud.

We generate part of the electricity for Montanans from wind farms (clean) that is firmed by uber-expensive electricity hydropower (clean) from Idaho, so we can send some wind energy (clean) to Alberta, so it can convert (carbon dioxide galore) various forms of coal into oil and fuels which can be converted (more carbon dioxide) into energy and contribute to global warming?

And for what? For higher electricity bills, a few jobs and a despoiled panorama.

Who benefits?

And where does the real wealth go, again?

Unless we actually develop an energy policy in this country, perhaps it doesn't matter.

Too many may not care which way the wind is blowing. They will feel comforted by the fact the wind is blowing at all.

I Can (Not) See for Miles and Miles

2008-10-26T18:01:00.005-06:00

Roy Brown and, to a lesser apparent extent, our Governor want to develop the Otter Creek tracts located in southeastern Montana just east of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. These huge coal-rich deposits were acquired by the State of Montana in exchange for agreeing not to tear the top off a gold-laden mountain just outside of Yellowstone National Park. The state took these tracts, seventeen in all, instead of $10.0 million in cash.

Sorting fact from fiction

"When the Otter Creek tracts were first accepted by the Racicot administration, Jim Mockler, the long-standing executive director of the Montana Coal Council, told the Land Board that "the state should have taken the money." Mockler then went on to add that the federal coal had "been there forever" and "if it was economical to develop it, it would have already been developed."
Undeterred by advice they didn't want to hear from the state's most pro-development representative of the coal industry, both the Racicot administration and that of his successor, Judy Martz, forged ahead in their attempts to develop Otter Creek. The 2003 legislature even went so far as to appropriate and spend $300,000 of public money to perform initial studies on the tracts.
Faced with the prospect of massive coal development on its border, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe sued the state and eventually reached an agreement (see Focus on Montana State Lands, Summer 2002 and May 2005) in which cultural, social, environmental, educational, and hiring issues were addressed. In the meantime, ranchers were fighting the proposed Miles City to Otter Creek Tongue River Railroad to prevent it from transecting their ranches.
And then politics reared its ugly head when Secretary of State Brad Johnson, the lone Republican on the Land Board, called Governor Schweitzer's plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant a "pipe dream" at the Republican state convention in 2006 and chided him for failing to push development of the Otter Creek tracts.
Schweitzer struck back hard three days later at the June Land Board meeting with an hour-long presentation which had not been on the agenda, detailing the administration's efforts to develop Montana's coal resources and peppering Johnson with questions about what he thought the state should be doing.
At the July 2006 Land Board meeting, DNRC made another presentation of the administration's coal development efforts, this time with special emphasis on the Otter Creek Tracts. Significantly, Chuck Kerr, the president of Great Northern Properties (GNP), which owns the private land checker boarded with the state land in the Otter Creek Tracts, gave a long presentation and cautioned the Land Board against rushing into leasing the coal properties until necessary infrastructure was in place. Although he called the estimated 1.2 billion tons of Otter Creek coal "a wonderful resource," Kerr said because of its high sodium content it was not suitable for use in today's thermal generation plants -- but would be suitable for coal gasification or coal-to-liquids. Kerr estimated the current high-sodium coal market at only 20 million tons per year compared to the 400 million tons per year mined for coal burning plants. Likewise, until a railroad, transmission lines, and/or pipelines were built to the tracts, Kerr felt that both the state and GNP would receive far less than the coal was actually worth and perhaps even face the prospect of the leases being purchased by Wyoming coal producers who would simply sit on them to eliminate any competition from Montana coal. Kerr estimated the time frame for getting the necessary infrastructure in place would probably be 6- 8 years and take $600-700 million.
In a surprising bit of news, state representative Jim Keane (D-Butte), gave a presentation and told the Land Board discussions were underway to build a much shorter rail line that would access the tracts from the south. As a union representative of the Operating Engineers, Keane said they have always opposed the Tongue River Railroad and still do because all it would accomplish would be allowing Wyoming coal to be shipped up to the northern tier — which Keane said would cost Montana 200 coal miner jobs in the first year alone. Keane estimated a 41-mile railroad could be built for $73.5 million to move the Otter Creek coal down to the existing Decker-area mines and generators where it could access Midwest markets, be blended with other coal, or used for gasification or liquefaction.
In the end, it was clear that not much is likely to happen with the Otter Creek coal tracts in the near future. As GNP’s president Chuck Kerr noted when he testified before the Board: “Otter Creek is obviously a remote area...a geopolitically sensitive area...an extremely rugged area...a pristine area” – which are all good reasons for conservationists to be happy that development of this low-grade coal is not imminent."

http://www.mtvoters.org/land_board_article/article/2006/otter_creek_coal_not_ready_to_be_developed

One name is synonymous with Otter Creek coal: Mark Gustafson, President of Wesco Resources in Billings, a tireless promoter whose picture likely appears next to the definition of ‘perseverance’ in some dictionaries. He has championed the cause for decades.

He has made a little headway with the State Land Board, comprised of the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Auditor and Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Board holds the power to determine when and how the tracts will be offered for lease and developed.

With one exception, the Democrats on the Board have been generally more circumspect and cautious about proceeding. Linda McCulloch is the exception. For what it is worth, here is the rationale (admittedly dated).

http://www.opi.state.mt.us/Supt/NewsStories/024D670427.nclk

With Carl Venne, leading the way, the Crow Nation is ready to make-a-deal-at-any-cost for coal development, be it mining or mine mouth electrical generation. Their hated neighbors, the Northern Cheyenne, are another matter. It is more concerned about weighing the long-term impacts v. benefits of coal development. The Council has made it clear that it will demand job training and job opportunities for Northern Cheyenne tribal members, protection of Cheyenne cultural sites and resources, offering contract opportunities for Indian-owned businesses, and a strict environmental monitoring program.

As a central player in the Otter Creek tracts, the Northern Cheyenne will similarly demand any coal-burning plants meet pristine air quality standards (carbon dioxide and mercury). It, along with ranchers in this arid setting, remains concerned about the likely adverse impacts of extensive strip mining on the aquifers that traverse the coal seams.

It will be fascinating to see whether, in the face of increased political and economic pressure to develop Otter Creek, the Land Board and the Northern Cheyenne buckle. Elect Tim Fox and Duane Grimes and that baby is a done deal.

Chicken or Egg? Or, just plain Boondoggle?

Coal mining and industrial interest are also chomping at the bit to construct the Tongue River Railroad from just north of the Wyoming border through the Tongue River Valley to Miles City. Earlier this summer, the United States Surface Transportation Board issued a permit for the right-of-way for the railroad.

In 2005, the estimated to cost was $200.0 million. You could probably ‘super-size’ the cost at $400.0 million and still be short. At the time, coal barons made it clear that the railroad was viable only if coal mine capable of producing 12 million tons of coal annually in the Otter Creek tracts was permitted. Bear in mind that privately-owned tracts are interspersed with those owned by the state. In 2005 dollars, the cost of developing the mine of that capacity: $80.0 million. With fries.

The pitch is for the state to cowboy up with mining and industrial corporations to produce coal from Otter Creek at rock-bottom prices. The coal is sold with a higher margin to provide capital (read: “subsidy”) to build and operate the railroad. Sounds simple: Build a railroad and haul the Otter Creek coal to market.

There is only one problem: When (or if) the Tongue River Railroad is built, it will cut 320 miles off the route for Wyoming coal to markets in the Midwest. Wyoming coal is of a higher quality than Treasure State coal and less costly to mine (less over-burden and thicker coal seams), making it both more attractive and more cost competitive. Estimates in 2005 were that between 12-16 million tons a year of Wyoming coal would find its way to market over this line.

Do you want to bet on it?

By in any way subsidizing the construction of the Tongue River Railroad, Montana would be (1) subsidizing Wyoming coal and (2) compounding the competitive disadvantage it now faces. Reduced miles to market for Wyoming coal means lower transportation costs.

Gustafson says we need the railroad to make the Otter Creek viable. Build the railroad while we develop the mine. Once construction is completed, a torrent of Wyoming coal floods the Midwestern markets, Montana coal continues at a trickle. Oh, and in the process, Montana coal miners lose their jobs.

And, who is the real beneficiary? Same as always: The robber barons in the suits.

The question is whether we want to turn the Tongue River Valley upside down and convert it into an industrial corridor. If you haven’t ever done so, you should drive out and visit Birney. Cast a fly in the Tongue. Talk to weather- and saddle-worn ranchers who descend from homesteaders. Their choked-up tears and sad tales about the land, livestock, wildlife and an increasingly threatened way of life are real.

There are other options than laying a pristine ranching and farming area to waste.

And, for what?

To fuel coal-fired electrical production across the eastern two-thirds of the United States. While their plumes are visible from space, the CO 2 emissions, measured in millions of tons annually, are not. Hell. We can’t even see them here on earth.

What we can see is the thousand-fold effects from a warming climate and burgeoning corporate bottom lines.

With Jake Out, Who's Minding the Store?

2008-10-26T12:44:00.006-06:00

Slow day.

So slow, I visited the Montana Republican Party website.

http://staging.gop.com/MTGOP

By the looks of it, there’s not much going on with the Grand Old Party.

Under the Events Calendar,” the next event is Mineral County Lincoln Reagan Day Dinner, on May 1, 2009. Better get in line now for tickets - - - only 6 months away.

The last GOP News posts are July 21, 2008. The staff, you see, was busy cross-checking Big Brown’s change-of-delivery addresses with the voter registrations in Missoula, Hill and Glacier Counties and then conjuring up challenges to some 3,000 Montanans right to vote.

That didn't work out too well. Ask Jake Eaton.

Now, when a fine young lad who has served the R's so well resigns, you'd expect a "Thanks for the Memories, Jake" post, right? [You don't suppose 'dem buggers had a secret, surprise going-away dinner for him and didn't tell us, do you?] Family secrets.

A fellow named Larry Grinde replaced Jake. No "Welcome aboard, Larry," story.

Larry is not new to Montana politics. He served 14 years in the Legislature and, according to a recent AP story “helped run Mike Taylor's unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign in 2002 and Pat Davison's unsuccessful primary race for governor in 2004. Two years later, Grinde supervised the Montana Republican Party's get-out-the-the-vote operation."

Evidently, in 2006, the GOP actually wanted people to vote. Oh, that’s right, it only pestered Republicans to vote.

In 2008, it tried to obstruct the right of 3,000+ Montanans to vote.

So, what do they have in store for 2010? Larry has presided over "unsuccessful" political ventures in the past. Montanans can only hope his string of luck continues.

Speaking of Pat Davison, the man who would be (or, more correctly, could have been) governor, he’s doing time in a white-collar federal penitentiary in Oregon.

“A former Montana gubernatorial candidate and investment adviser was sentenced Friday to 10 years in federal prison for orchestrating a Ponzi scheme authorities say bilked investors out of $6.8 million.

Patrick Davison, 50, also was ordered to pay $5.6 million in restitution to victims including family members, friends and former colleagues. He pleaded guilty in November [2006]to two counts of securities fraud.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-13-865317168_x.htm

The judge threw the book at Pat all right. He was ordered to pay back $5.6 million of the $6.8 million he bilked. Question for Bill Mercer, the US attorney [with his own problems] who prosecuted the case: What about the other $1.2 million?

As the story says, Larry Grinde ran Davison’s campaign and may have taught Pat a thing or two about big-money penalties.

In an earlier career, you see, Larry was a rancher in central Montana, with a ranch just north and a tad bit to the east of Lewistown (Hilger, Montana, actually). After logging a portion of the estate (I’m sure he followed forestry practices what was later made famous by the "Healthy Forests" doctrine - - - "Don't worry. We're just thinning."), the Grinde family set a fire to piles of slash and walked away. Seems the fire got away, burned across the Grinde place and got onto BLM land and kept going, burning other private, as well as public, land until extinguished. The price tag for fighting the fire ran into the millions. Larry, of course, said it wasn’t his fault and the matter went to court. (And, here I thought Republicans were all about personal responsibility.)

So, Larry, did you pay us back in full? Or, did you, too, receive a deep discount?

But, I digress. Back to the GOP website.

No mention of John McCain and Sarah Palin anywhere, even under Candidates.

MT GOP Blog. Won't open.

Multimedia. Governor Huckabee was in Billings That was back in July or August, right? [As the header says, "Visit this page regularly . . ."]

Register to Vote. This is my favorite page. Now that the deadline to register to vote has passed, perhaps 3,000+ new wanna be Republicans can register to offset the 3,000+ voters whose right to vote was upheld in federal court.

Volunteer. For what? " . . . to be a part of the largest grassroots army Montana has ever seen." [Memo to Larry: There's this guy named Obama running for President and he has hundreds of organizers in . . . .]

Donate. To help burn down Schweitzer in something called Schweitzer Gate. Nice bit on candidate Grimes. The website promotes the fact that Duane holds a "theology" degree from Bob Jones University, whose founder once said, "God is the author of [racial] segregation . . . and, that if you are against it, "then you are against God Almighty." [4/17/60 radio address, Is Segregation Scriptural?]

A few more news clips. Larry, you're posting them in the wrong place! See GOP News above. Didn't Jake leave you the memo?

For those of you in the Garden City, don't miss Steve Dagiokos at the Pachyderm Club on November 7. Steve, in case you don't know, is a mostly no-show R candidate for the Legislature in the University area. Can't wait to hear from friends in Missoula what he has to say.

Photo Gallery. Lot's of white folks a dinin' and a carryin' on with good ol' Conrad.

Contact Us. 'nuff said.

A Sunday morning reflection

2008-10-26T09:39:00.006-06:00

We have so much to treasure here in Montana, This House of Sky.

" . . . a sky so big you feel like you will fall into it."

If you breathe and dream and haven't 'seen' it, somewhere in the recesses of your mind lies an image of what this grand place is.

For those unwilling or unable to leave the pavement, the best vistas in Montana:

Glacier Park from any angle. Thank God in the early 1900's, there were voices loud enough to preserve the "Crown of the Continent."

The Rocky Mountain Front. Spectacular contrasts, an immaculate uncluttered viewshed. Spared from drilling, now threatened by the construction of hundreds of wind generators.

The Mission Mountain Range. Magnificent reminder of the power of nature. Sheer spleandor.

The Big Hole Valley. Perfectly-formed bowl. A well-kept secret of a gem, carefully tucked into a green velvet purse. Best known as an historic refuge.

Charlie Russell County and Square Butte, particularly at sunset during fall harvest. Is this Heaven?

The Missouri Breaks on a crisp spring morning.

What are yours?

And, what will you do protect them?

Energy: The Last Frontier

2008-10-24T18:52:00.013-06:00

It’s official. The Montana GOP energy plan is out. It’s a lot like the one favored by some Democrats - - - they just haven’t gotten around to calling it a plan.

It’s called: Dig it! Drill it!

DiDi?

It was good enough for Alan Olson, an R running for the Public Service Commission, to earn the labor [AFL-CIO] endorsement last June.

They say DiDi is all about energy independence and jobs. Not going to cow-tow to a bunch of 'olive-skinned' Middle Easterners. What did our Governor once call them? Raghead dictators?

While the R’s complain about the permitting process and environmental regulations, the truth is that state every law and review process has been written to the complete satisfaction of industry. Oh, wait, there is one they want: Anyone who challenges the sufficiency of an administrative (regulatory) proceeding or initiates a court challenge against a ‘project’ or permit for any reason, must post a bond. A really, really big one. That one hasn't passed just yet - - - something about due process and impeding one's right to access the courts.

Roy Brown says DiDi is about funding for education. Mining companies pay taxes on the coal they produce and there's a lot out there. In fact, Montana sits atop the largest coal reserves in the western hemisphere. Sometimes, outsiders even call Montana the ‘Saudi Arabia of Coal.’ I’d just as soon go without that handle, thank you.

What DiDi is really all about is lunacy.

We all know oil and even coal are going to run out one day. They are finite fossil fuels. Our rate of consumption is growing exponentially and no new coal and oil have been produced, not in our lifetimes anyway. What happens when it all runs out?

And, the there is the little problem called global warming. Some dare refer to it as ‘climate change.’

Yes, science is not 100 percent convinced that we have climate change. As Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer winning, free-marketeer, puts it, only 98 percent of the scientific community agrees that the planet is warming and the increase in temperature is caused by the human production of carbon dioxide.

Let’s say our worldwide atmosphere is your child. Your child has symptoms of a serious illness. So, you go to your family doctor. The diagnosis is the child will die without treating and changing how some systems are functioning.

You love your child and you want to be absolutely certain the recommended treatment is correct. So, you seek a second opinion, and a third, and a fourth and so on until you’ve seen 100 doctors.

Two of them say nothing’s wrong. Just wait and see.

Who do you believe? What do you do?

The cruel truth is that Coal is King. Economies worldwide are built around it because it is abundant, cheap and, although cursed as dirty and unhealthy [black lung and mercury poisoning], thought acceptably benign. It will enjoy a long rule even if we agreed today to phase its consumption down to zero as quickly as politically, economically and all of the other "-icallys" you can list, possible.

So, we continue to mine it and burn it and make electricity in Montana.

Or, we mine it, rail it to buyers elsewhere who burn it and make electricity. The quality of Montana coal [and its distance from markets and the higher transportation costs that result], not out taxes, make it less attractive to buyers than coal from, say, Wyoming.

But, wait a minute. What about 'real' energy independence? After all, we need fuels to run our trains, planes and automobiles.

That’s the coal to liquids caper.

You build a plant and liquefy coal. There aren’t many in operation. Try South Africa. The so-called Fischer-Tropsch was perfected by the Master Race in Nazi Germany. Using the Fischer-Tropsch method, one ton of coal produces 1.5 barrels of diesel fuel. If you are keeping score, a barrel is 42 gallons.

Or, we could turn coal into a gas.

The first thing to note about these processes: They cost zillions of dollars. When the economy was booming, the real question [although not posed this way] was, who is going to the first one dumb enough to build one outside of Africa?

Second thing to note about these processes: They consume massive amounts of water. Years of drought conditions [maybe, just maybe brought on by a warming of the climate] and little precipitation mean the rivers barely run through coal country these days. What little there is belongs to senior water rights holders, ranchers, farmers, municipalities and reserved in-stream flows. Perhaps, instead of going meatless, the humans can go waterless. The fish and wildlife? Gosh, let's see . . .

Third thing to note: They produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Sell it, we're told. Yes, pipe it to compressor stations where it pressurized then forced underground to squeeze crude oil out of once-thought-to-be-depleted oil fields. [And, when the oil is depleted completely, what happens to the CO 2?] Better yet, how about storing ( aka: sequestering) the carbon dioxide underground, a new, but completely untested idea? If I recall correctly, for hundreds of years, didn’t we think the best way to rid ourselves of certain industrial waste by-products was to flush them down a river or heat them up and expel them into the air? That didn’t work out so well.

Fourth thing to note: They consume massive amounts of electricity. Through a whirling dervish of activity, these plants can be trained to sit up and co-generate electricity - - - the process itself consumes roughly 40 percent of the electricity produced. The investors can only hope the cost of the remaining, unused power can be produced at a cost that makes it competitive enough to be sold profitably on the open market.

Earlier this year, the Governor nuzzled up to investors from Australia who, pretty much without any state involvement, concluded an agreement with the Crow Nation to build one of these plants. Although, come to think of it, the media didn’t mention Fischer-Tropsch. [The Aussies do have their own problems with genocide of the Aborigines.]

When the topsy-turvy financial markets and an inadequate supply of water doom the project, the Governor can fade away. Roy, you ask? I don’t know - - - has he actually said he supports these damned things? [Tragically, once again, the White Man’s words will pierce impoverished hearts, souls and stomachs in Indian Country.]

When you enter the frontier, you had better have a real plan. Otherwise you might just be stuck with DiDi: damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Hardly a way to survive.

Hardly a legacy to leave our ancestors.

Mayoral Elections: Wasilla-style

2008-10-24T10:46:00.004-06:00

Word has it that campaigns for the Office of Mayor in Wasilla are hotly-contested.

Sarah was elected in the first round of Paper, Rock, Scissors.

Because someone demanded a recount, it's now best two out of three.

The Business of Government is Business

2008-10-24T10:01:00.009-06:00

"The Business of governmentis business."

The quote is attributed to Calvin Coolidge, often rated the worst President ever.

OK. Some rank Harding the worst. Others list Hoover. No matter. Shortly, after the next Presidential inauguration, GW will assume the ranking of the rankest. [Oh my! They're all Republicans.]

Both Coolidge and Bu$h exhibited unbridled confidence in the ability of businesses to produce wealth, if only unshackled by government. Calvin set the stage for the Crash of '29 - - - George set the stage, produced, directed and presided over our current economic disaster.

Is bigger really better?

When it comes to Montana, corporations, big ones, have dominated since statehood.

No question that the Copper kings and Anaconda Company literally ruled the Treasure State until the 1960’s.

In the 60’s after it sold its ownership share in the daily newspapers and an environmental movement was in its infancy, the "Company" receded as the Bad Guy with the Black Hat and was replaced by a mix of bad apples: Montana Power, the Burlington Northern, and bad actors in the resource extraction industry, with Pegasus head and shoulders above the rest. The insurance companies were more tactful, but they got their share without the accompanying share of notoriety.

Each one either fought its way to the front or strategically awaited its turn at the trough in Helena for just the right time to gobble down its share of policy handouts. The gobbling took place when the R’s were in control, which was periodically until the mid 90’s, when they then ran the table with two house legislative majorities and the Governor’s office from 1995 to 2005. During that time it went something like this: Tax breaks? OK. How much? Reduced water quality standards? Write the bill and we’ll get it through. De-regulate electricity? OK, whatever that is. Keep the explanation simple and we’ll jam it through.

A few Montana-based, but mostly large multi-state and multi-national corporations left the Capitol Building their pockets full, their way clear to pollute and despoil. Oh, there were promises. Lots of them. They promised Montana’s economy would roar with abundance and new jobs would spring up under the glow of an unfettered free market system. New taxpayers with high-paying jobs and newly-arrived companies paying reduced rates on everything would flood the state treasury with tax payments. Property taxes would go down schools, would have enough money and, and , and blah, blah, blah.

In case you missed it, the plan, whatever it was supposed to be, didn’t work.

Yes, some Democrats participated in the dirty work, but make no mistake about it: They were all Republican initiatives that enjoyed near-universal Republican support on each vote.

But, then again, you can’t have missed it. Montana’s economy languished as it had prior to the tax and policy give-aways under Governor Racicot and Republican legislatures. The leaders of the R Pack were John Mercer, Larry Grinde, Doug Mood, John Harp, Bruce Crippen, Debbie Shea and Fred Thomas. [Fred had a way of actually sponsoring the worst policy initiatives in Montana history, most notably de-regulation and term limits.] Market-based power costs resulting from de-regulation leaves Montana with of the highest electricity rates in the West. Between 1995 and 2003, property taxes on homeowners and small businesses skyrocketed. University system tuition doubled for in-state students during the same period. [Out-of-state tuition? Out-of-sight increases!]

We, like every other state, chased smokestacks with their promises of jobs and money. We even promised to lower taxes on them if they would only plunk down the slightest morsel of their industrial largesse. The owners of those firms took their smokestacks to other locales where they said they got a “better deal,” meaning free land, no unions and no taxes. [Not surprisingly, when a better deal came along, the pulled up stakes and took their smoke elsewhere.]

In the late 90’s, an article in the New York Times called Montana “one of the poorest states in the country.” Even Appalachia had passed us by.

Well, golly. Gee whiz, the industry apologists exclaimed. “We don’t need to tear the scab off the sore by examining why it didn’t work, do we? We just need to reduce taxes on businesses even more.”

“We need to look to the future. And, be positive.”

That’s what the voters did. In 2004, it sent the woeful Martz bunch packing and elected Brian Schweitzer, the first Democrat elected since 1984, elected a Democratic majority in the Senate and sent an even number of R’s and D’s to the House.

With the Martz exit, the vestiges of her, Racicot’s and Stephens’ [Stan was Governor from 1989 through 1993.]misguided ideologies about businesses wafted away like the stench and haze their policies produced.

Since, then, the focus hasn’t shifted from the importance that businesses play in Montana’s economy. It simply concentrates the focus on the fact that small businesses are the backbone of Montana’s economy, constituting between 85 to 90 percent of its business base. Discussions of tax policy, including the business equipment tax, factored in their interests as well.

Schumacher said it best: Small really is better and, yes, beautiful.

Democrats never fare well with voting records put assembled by either the state of local chambers of commerce. The R’s do.

No matter. Make up you own mind. When you look at these and other voting records, take a careful look at the detail of each of the supposed “good” bills. Most would have us turn back the clock to the roaring 1990’s.

Fortunately, the D’s and some moderate R’s held the line.

If they hadn’t, we’d be right back to the Roaring Twenties with Calvin Coolidge calling for more favors for business. The big 'uns.

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

2008-10-22T21:26:00.007-06:00

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.

2008 Election: Education

2008-10-21T20:09:00.009-06:00

If the election were held today . . .

You’re correct - - - the election is still two weeks away.

But, when the dust settles and the votes are counted, legislative power is divvied up in Helena.

The party with the majority of the seats controls the legislative process and the agenda.

And, good or bad, power is usually follows seniority.

Take the names of the following members and plug them into the various leadership positions and key committee chairmanships [Appropriations; Taxation; Judiciary; Natural Resources].

In the Senate, if the R’s win 26 seats, here are the projected prime-time players on the GOP team:

Bob Story; Greg Barkus; Dan McGee; Jim Peterson; Keith Bales; Joe Balyeat; Gary Perry; Roy Brown (although I need to caution the reader that Roy might not be a member if he takes out Schweitzer); Roy Brown (OK. He’s back).

Scouting report: All are middle-aged or older males; most are angry about something. Believe in no regulation, free market solutions and tax cuts for the landed aristocracy and out of state corporations.

No women. No one under the age of fifty.

Word has it that the leadership will give neither Dave Lewis nor Rick Laibel much rein - - - too moderate. Informally, John Brueggeman has holds the Sam Kitzenberg rubber chicken memorial award for his comments about the GOP’s voter suppression caper.

Pretty grim.

The Senate D team with at least 26 seats:

Carol Williams; Mike Cooney; Jesse Laslovich; Kim Gillan, Trudi Schmidt; Bob Hawks; Lynda Moss; David Wanzenried.

Scouting report: Four women. The youngest member of the caucus [28] in the mix.

The House line-ups with at least 51 seats.

GOP: Scott Sales; Dennis Himmelberger; Scott Mendenhall; Janna Taylor, Tom McGillvray; Dave Kasten; Bob Lake; Ron Stoker; Ed Butcher;.

Scouting report: Unlike the Senate, this team has a woman. Like the Senate, talk about angry white men!

Free marketers.

Dems: Margie Campbell; Bob Bergren; Dave McAlpin; Dan Villa; Mike Jopek; Jon Sesso; Jill Cohenour; George Groesbeck; Franke Wilmer.

Scouting update: Loads of women, including an American Indian. And, the youngest current member in the Legislature [25] in the mix.

In the event of a tie . . . well, let’s not go there.

OK, so, when it comes to funding for public education, who do you want to chair the Appropriations Committee? Or, which team includes members who actually believe in public education in the first place?

And, when it comes to funding for the University System, which team would most likely provide the level of funding needed to avoid large tuition increases?

Speaking of funding for the U-System, for the record, GOP team members Senator Joe Balyeat and House Speaker Scott Sales penned the arguments in opposition to the statewide 6-mill levy [LR 118], which has been authorized and re-authorized every ten years by the voters since 1948. One of their arguments is that by defeating the re-authorization of the mill levy, the voters will be sending the University System a message that it disagrees with the policy against students having firearms on campus.

http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2008/voters/2008_Voter_Information_Pamphlet.pdf. See page 10.

So, in other words, by denying the system $13.4 million a year, the plan evidently is to force the Board of Regents to change the policy and allow every student to pack heat.

Good idea?

[These and other equally bad arguments against the levy find a voice with the following groups: Treasure State Network, Montana Family Coalition, Republican Roughriders, American Dream Montana, Montana Values Coalition, Help Our Moral Environment, Montanans for Tax Reform, Montanans for Property Rights, Constitution Party of Montana, Montanans In Action, Republican Assemblies of Montana and the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Guess which line-ups they prefer and are working hard to put into power?]

While this was all being sorted out, tuition would have to be increased to offset the $13.4 million loss.

Oh, and the next election to re-authorize the mill levy isn’t until 2018.

Of course, the University System could ask the 2009 Legislature [and each session thereafter] to backfill the lost proprty tax revenue. But, which team members in the Senate and House would you bet would be more sympathetic to the plight of students? And, in this case, which team members would scream the loudest that, if the Legislature acted to restore the funding from state sources, it would be violating the “will of the voters”?

The only good news in the midst of this lunacy would be that, as tuition goes up, perhaps gun-toting students would only be able to afford enough ammunition to load one clip.

You get the idea. The legislative process is about reconciling competing priorities and conflicting vlaues.

Which Way to Go?

2008-10-20T23:44:00.004-06:00

I’ve been asked more than once: Why should I vote for a Democrat in 2008 for the Montana Legislature?

Given that the Legislature meets for less than four months every two years, the question deserves a full-fledged discussion. So, in response, I usually pose a series of questions.

How much would you be willing to pay to ensure that homeowners and small businesses ( v. multi-national corporations) are treated fairly when tax policy is being set? To see to it that the State of Montana pays its share for funding our Kindergarten through Grade 12 system of public education? To make strategic investments in our colleges of technology and University System? To seriously confront the real costs of more than 145,000 Montanans without health insurance to our state and the remainder of us who have the good fortune of having coverage? To diversify Montana’s energy portfolio by requiring an increasing portion to be derived from renewable resources? To effectively address the causes of climate change and to faithfully perform our responsibilities as stewards of the land?

Those who yearn for a progressive agenda usually say, “A lot.”

How about one hundred and sixty dollars? $160.00 for each closely contested race?

These days you'd have to live under a rock not to know what these races are.

In the next two weeks, that's what it may take. Last-minute responses to late hard-hitting, negative fliers are expensive. And, let's face it, negative, attack mail works [unforunately].

And, then, how about investing a day or two assisting with the get-out-the-vote efforts?

These days, the only way Montana will have progressive policies is to elect a majority of Democrats to the House (at least 51 needed) and the Senate (at least 26 needed).

In the 2005 and 2007 legislative sessions, Democrats managed to hold slim majorities in only the Senate. In each of those sessions, working with Governor Schweitzer, the Senate overcame the obstructive tactics of House Republicans to address and to move an agenda each of the issues included in the questions listed above. The antics of the GOP leadership beginning on the first day of the ’07 session and continuing the last day, complete with Mike Lange’s vulgar tirade, are well documented.

That behavior was mean spirited and destructive, not to Democrats. No, it was destructive to the voters who send legislators to Helena to conduct the public’s business and to safeguard Montana's present and future.

While holding huge legislative majorities in both houses from 1995 through 2003, as well as the Governor’s office, the GOP ran the state into the ground. The Racicot years were marked by a budgetary hocus pocus, under-funding schools, deregulating electricity, gutting water and air quality standards, and shifting huge property tax burdens onto homeowners by extending massive tax cuts to, which went directly to the bottom lines of out of state corporations with no tangible return to the state. Judy Martz stumbled through her four years, but still managed to oversee the effective demise of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Major Facility Siting Act in 2001 and the introduction of massive inequities into Montana’s income tax system in 2003.

Industry got what it demanded and promised to deliver. Exactly what it was supposed to 'deliver' to Montana was clear. But, I am certain it was "a lot."

To the surprise of almost no one, none of it worked, at least not for Montanans trying hold down a decent job, to raise and family and educate their kids. The chicanery was exposed for what is was and Montana careened from one crisis to another.

While Governor Schweitzer and Democrats have made measurable progress, there is still a lot to do. They just need the opportunity. But, it takes legislators who go to Helena prepared to roll up their sleeves and find the common ground in setting policy that is so vital to Montana’s future.

Saying that we must elect Republicans to Helena to help balance things out only works if the GOP allows its members to stray from its hard core, extreme right-wing ideology, something that never occurred in the House during the 2007 session. In fact, in the 2006 election cycle, the GOP specifically targeted and defeated two moderates, Bernie Olson and Mark Noenig, who had the audacity to occasionally vote with Democrats. Ideological cleansing at its best (or worst).

A progressive agenda has begun to blossom.

The question now really is: Do we continue or turn back?

How much would you pay a lobbyist to persuade Republicans to be a part of moving Montana forward? And, if they continue their obstructionist ways, how much will each lost opportunity and setback cost us and future generations?

Let’s get it right starting now.

Questions about Democrats’ ability to manage the state’s finances have been answered. Despite Chicken Little proclamations that taxes would go up in 2005 and 2007, each session was characterized by a fiscal discipline that produced sustainable investments without an increase in taxes. That discipline and attention to the basics produced a surplus and, in 2007, each income taxpayer received a check for $400.00.

There is work to be done in the areas of the Montana economy and the creation of good-paying jobs with benefits, education, health care, and energy.

Each of these will be addressed in future postings. The frame of reference will be: The operations of the House and Senate will be controlled by individuals who are elected into leadership positions or appointed to chair committees. Of the two teams competing to control the process and the agenda in each house, which is better suited to move Montana forward?

A More Sacred Right?

2008-10-20T22:18:00.003-06:00

Journeys across Big Sky Country are most often made by car. Lots of windshield time and lots of time to think, contemplate.

On one such drive recently, it occurred to me that the failed efforts the Republican Party to challenge the registration of over 6,000 registered voters suggest that the GOP feels that some rights are less sacred than others.

Take the right to bear arms. Spelled out in both the United States and Montana Constitutions. If anyone dares to suggest initiatives related to firearms, such as the largely unregulated purchase of firearms at gun shows, all hell breaks loose. Everyone, including those who do not even own a firearm or who do not frequent Saturday afternoon gun bazaars, are ready for a fight and want to take dead aim [unfortunately, literally] on the initiator.

The outrage becomes the centerpiece of political campaigns. “What EXACTLY is your position on the Second Amendment?”

In unison, the refrain is, “enforce the laws we have. If someone violates the law, throw the book at ‘em. When our guns are taken away only criminals will have guns."

In other words: Don’t even suggest that the right to pack be messed with.

What is it? ‘You can you have my gun only if you “pry it from my cold, dirt-covered, lifeless fingers.”’

The right to vote, another fundamental right in our system of government, is seemingly a different matter altogether.

Voting and voting rights in our country has a ragged history. We’ve been told wars were waged to protect the right to vote, although obstacles of every sort were erected to allow just a few ['landed gentlemen' they were called] to vote. Grudgingly, the barriers came down - - - poll taxes were abolished, women and people of color, and even those who are eighteen years of age, were enfranchised. Here again blood was spilled, in most cases on our own soil and in our streets, to secure this right.

All of us want of elections to be decided by only those legally eligible to vote. If there are violations of the law, why not use the laws in place to deal with voter fraud?

But, no, no. Even though there were no documented instances of votes being cast illegally, the 2003 Montana Legislature, which was controlled by Republicans, created something called ‘provisional ballots.’ If you fall into a certain category [such as being challenged] or you do not have a picture ID when you appear to vote, you can cast a provisional ballot. You then must remedy whatever deficiency within an allotted time and your ballot becomes a real ballot and is counted. Failing to do so renders your ballot void. Kaput. Nada. Nyet.

Without the recent federal court ruling stopping the bald-faced voter suppression, more than 6,000 voters [most of whom were more than likely Democrats] would have had to provide documentation as to their addresses prior to voting or been forced to cast provisional ballots. [Perhaps this is the electoral equivalent of a ‘cooling off period.’]

Did those Montanans whose voter registration was not being challenged express outrage? Nope.

Was anyone angry about the amount of the inconvenience to ‘fix’ the so-called problem and the irrefutable evidence that nearly 90 percent of all provisional ballots cast are never counted? Well, no.

Did those who only occasionally and selectively to vote for, say, candidates who support ‘gun rights’ mobilize and speak out for fear that they might be next to have their registration challenged? Why, no. [Oh, that’s right, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the threat (fear) level is only at orange - - - when it gets to red, watch this bunch leap into the voter registration fray.]

Did our lazy-ass media ask the candidates for Attorney General where they stand on the right to vote? Well, golly, no.

So, let’s see, the way the world is ordered, I should be able to obtain a firearm under any circumstance, preferably totally free of government interference.

But, when it comes to my vote, I may need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to an elections bureaucrat that I am eligible to participate because someone of Jake Eaton’s ilk challenged me?

Maybe I should ask Jake and Erik Iverson to attend a weekend gun bonanza with me and challenge the credentials of 6,000 attendees who are there to purchase their very own piece and “amanition” free of “govmint regalation” and certainly no damned inconvenient waiting period.

Heck, Erik might even fluff himself up and tell them gun enthusiasts they had better behave or else he’ll challenge their right to vote.

How the Mighty Fall, periodically

2008-08-31T10:33:00.004-06:00

There’s a name that won’t be on the ballot this fall that should not go unnoticed: Bob Keenan.

You remember Bob.

Senate President.

Senate Minority Leader.

Termed out after the '05 session.

While vacationing in Costa Rica, he offered himself up as an alternative to Conrad Burns in the 2006 GOP US Senate Primary. Word had it that Conrad was about to be indicted and led away in cuffs for his dealings with Jack Abramoff.

After filing for his old House seat in the Bigfork area, Bob, being the team player he is, dutifully withdrew from that race put his name in play to serve us in Washington.

Bob lost the primary. And, no, it wasn’t even close. The margin just south of 49,000 votes, to Conrad Burns!

After spending the 2007 session skulking the hallways in the Capitol in an advisory capacity to the House GOP leadership team (You know: Scott Sales; Mike Lange; John Sinrud; Bill Glaser), Bob evidently decided the Ship of State (Helena or Washington) could not navigate troubled waters without him.

“Oh, gosh,” he said. “Governor. United States Senator. What will it be?”

He kept all of us in breathless anticipation until the last day of filing.

Yes, there was the customary ‘aw shucks.’ While discussing a possible run for the Senate, he said, ‘‘I’m wide open. There’s a lot of pressure and assumption and expectation that I might run for governor of Montana as well. The third and most attractive option is to skip the ’08 cycle and go on with my life.’’ Montana Standard. 9/27/07

And?

He filed for his old House seat in the Bigfork area.

To the private dismay of many a Republican House members, shortly after he filed, word filtered down that upon his return to the House, Bob was eying the Speaker’s slot or chairing the House Appropriations Committee.

‘Oh, gosh. What will it be?’ Bob must have been smugly muttering.

With a household name like his, how did Bob use the days between the close of filing and the primary election?

Working hard on the doors?

No, on the links.

Bob, you see, is quite the golfer.

And, certainly a guy with his Brahmin creds need not sully himself by touching mere mortals called voters.

Rumor had it that Bob was not satisfied with his short irons game.

Oh, and the primary election?

He lost. He did manage to finish second to a fellow named Scott Reichner in a four-candidate primary.

And, no, it wasn’t even close.

Bob must still be muttering, “Oh, gosh. What will it be?”

Judy Martz - Iteration #2

2008-08-29T09:30:00.003-06:00

This just in:

McCain has selected Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his running mate.

The first woman to run as a vice-presidential candidate.

She has served two years of a four-year term as governor and served as mayor of Wasilla for four years, so certainly she is well-versed in worldly matters in the event she would happen to ascend to the highest office in the land.

Certainly, after four or eight years of seasoning she would be ready.

Nothing against women holding higher office, but am I forgetting something? Didn't we try something like this in Montana with Judy Martz? Sorry, Governor Martz.

The only apparent difference is that Sarah won't be able to have the Secret Service give her a ride home to Butte every night after work.

Getting the job done

2008-08-27T17:26:00.000-06:00

By working together, folks get things done in Montana.

Former Sen. Lee Metcalf always said by sharing credit, public officials can get a lot done. The legislature works hard to do the right thing on behalf of all Montanans - - - no one person can or should take credit for Montanans successes. Brian Schweitzer needs to keep in mind that one’s ability to get things done is because of who you work for and you work with - - - no one person has the ability to accomplish things by herself/ himself.

When it comes to civility and being respectful of one another in order to get things done, Montana needs to be the beacon in the West.

Democratic National Convention: The more things change . . .

2008-08-25T14:32:00.008-06:00

So, the Olympics are over.

NBC repeatedly reminded us that we could not live without it.

Still, many of us did.

Ever wonder if the average Iraqi or Afghan tuned in?

Tape delay was the order of the day.

After all China is way over there.

Even when we knew about the outcome, we were still thrilled, overjoyed or despondent once we 'witnessed' the event.

But, we were able to 'see' it and that's the thing, right?

And to the great relief of the millions of viewers who tuned in from Providence to Petaluma, the US won the overall medal count.

Barely.

When it became clear that the Red, White and Blue could not earn the most Gold medals, we reassured ourselves with the knowledge that the People's Republic in Red could not match our overall athletic prowess to finish first, second and third.

We Americans, it is said, are pragmatists.

We are rationalizers of the highest order.

Perhaps if the viewers concerned themselves as much about our how our nation's policies are being sold to the highest bidder or about our nation's war-mongering foreign policies and the damage it has inflicted on our nation's image and diplomatic efforts with our few remaining friends worldwide, we might stand up and demand an end to corporate domination and an end the senseless wars.

Now, the media frenzy shifts to Denver, then later to Saint Paul, for the presidential nominating conventions.

Perhaps it's just me, but exactly what purpose are these gatherings supposed to serve?

In the old days, before texting, e-mailing, cell phone videoes, these grand gatherings evidently filled a void. Nowadays, a presidential candidate can barely make a move of any type, including one involving the bowels, without a complete description.

So, what is there to know?

We all know what is going to happen.

And, yet, we are compelled to watch.

In the case of the Democrats, the nominating convention is more difficult to figure out, particularly when you consider the sponsors include the telecommunications industry that was granted immunity last month from any liability for its part in the pervasive domestic spying that occurred in the emotional maelstrom that accompanied 911

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support

and Big Oil.

The official line is that Democrats despise both.

That is until the question of sponsorships comes up.

Even the words of concern are espoused and the hands of concern are wrung, political operatives are busily working the phone lines and corporate hallways of big oil, pharmaceuticals, insurance, banks . . . you name it.

Oh. And after they agree to bankroll the extravaganzas, they watch it from luxury sky boxes.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/so-whos-up-in-those-skyboxes.html

Democracy Now! sums it up very well:

And so, what this is is it’s a very bipartisan corporate-political class that really functions without regard to things like ideological belief or political positions. Democrats, Republicans really don’t matter in this world. It’s a political and corporate class that is very insulated and has its own interests and ensures that those interests are served by the Congress, no matter which party is in control. And they write their own rules that apply only to them and to nobody else. And it’s really at the center of why Americans are so deeply dissatisfied with how our government functions. (July, 22, 2008)

Many cynics figure this is SOP for the GOP.

But, the Democrats?

In January 2007, they rolled into Washington, DC mounted on white stallions, pledging to drive out the 'bad guys.'

Hmmm. The good guys were shaking down the 'bad guys' even before they were sworn in

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4736940

As for the 'bad guys,' all but the very worst of them still ply their trade.

Evidently, the only true ticket out of the Beltway is an indictment or conviction.

Many of those attending regale us about the many evils of PAC's, and then slurp up the finger food at the many parties and 'events' sponsored by you know who.

Obama is the agent of change, right?

Okay, so when does that 'change' thing start exactly?

The Denver gathering is all about unity [let's see how how Hillary's die-hards toe the line] and leadership [Joe Biden for VP. No. No, really.]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the hired hands are left to wonder if their jobs will be outsourced, if anyone is going to get serious about access to affordable health care, whether we will even take the hard steps needed to end our addiction to oil, whether they can afford to heat their homes this winter, or when those now seemingly reasonable fuel prices will resume that steep ascent.

So, check your local listings for the schedule of events. It's sort of like the Olympics: You know what is going to happen, but you can tune in live.

Don't miss it.

After all, the coverage is sponsored by ExxonMobil.