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.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Fighter Still Remains
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.
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.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
With Jake Out, Who's Minding the Store?
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What if They Had a Cattle Show and a Candidate Forum Broke Out?
I just attended another “candidate forum.” Lots of them right now. More often than not, the candidates outnumber the spectators or guests.
If you haven’t, you should go to one. Or more.
Too many questions and too little time.
The questions are loaded - - - in most cases, there is a “right” answer and a “wrong” answer.
This is strictly the case for candidate forums sponsored by human services and aging and disabilities advocacy groups.
Most candidates show up. It’s always interesting to speculate why some R's do not. Are they sick? Stuck in traffic? Forgetful? Not supportive of the sponsoring group and its goals?
In an way, I admire those who choose not to show up because they do not support the group, its mission and its members. Without a note from home with an excuse, their silence says it all.
Perhaps this displays remarkable integrity.
In another way, their absence appalls me - - - it underscores an utter disregard for trying to understand the challenges and misery that significant numbers of our less-fortunate neighbors must face.
Regardless, the experienced Republicans who do show up are often "for" everything. “Yes, sir, I’ll vote to support funding everything you want” is usually the attitude. This is especially true of candidates that have run previously and lost. ["Ill say anything to get elected."]
A careful examination of the R’s posture while awaiting a turn at the microphone reveals something I call the “GOP squirm.” While stretching or wiggling, they glance blankly at the spectators, as if to say, "Please don't lead me off to slaughter." You can panic in their eyes - - - instinctively they abhor government. The question is: “How do I make my answer sound like ‘yes,’ when deep down inside I know the answer is ‘no’? You know they want to blurt out and say, "We're mad as hell and we're not taking it any more!"
In this regard, first-time GOP candidates are the most fun to watch, particularly the ideologues. They simply don’t know any better and answer without regard to consequences. At times the answer doesn't fit the question. No matter. They answer like somehow the managed to scale down from the Mount with tablets containing the written word.
Like we haven’t heard it all before.
First-timers and perennial unsuccessful candidates don’t shy aware from declaring that they want to chop the budget, lower taxes and unshackle businesses from the burden of regulation.
Unfortunately, in increasing numbers these ideologues actually win. Fortunately, in more cases, they do not.
And, for those R’s who want to sound like ‘yes’, they haven’t the slightest idea what they’re talking about or committing to support. Admittedly, only a fraction, perhaps as few as 10, of the 150 members of the Legislature actually understand the appropriations process, let alone the content of the primary appropriations bill.
In many cases, this not only true of the newbies. Incumbent R’s with lousy voting records on human services issues oftentimes say ‘yes’ and then provide the qualifiers in a condescending manner. “We never have enough money." "You have no idea how tough it is." "Walk a mile in my shoes.” Their electoral success resides in their ability to avoid sounding like a Republican.
At times, R candidates (new ones and incumbents alike) with less panache, articulate the correct “yes” answer and, then, hand out their campaign literature which is rife with statements to lower taxes [usually called “tax relief”], ax government spending [“bloated bureaucracy”] and encourage families to take care of their own ["reduce the role of/ interference of government in our lives"].
Incumbent R’s know all too well that the Republican caucuses takes dim view of spending, particularly on “social programs.” Betraying their spoken words, deep down inside these R’s know they will buckle under the pressure from the caucus to cut “fat” from the budget, cuts that always disproportionately fall onto the human services budget.
Those who heard the promises in candidate forums are long gone and the words forgotten.
But, for those who do remember, this is how politics gets its bad name.
Montana, like the rest of the United States, does not have a health care system. What we have is a mess. With 140,000 fellow Montanans roaming about without any type of health insurance, we have a disaster. And, it is getting worse every day, literally.
Unlike wine, health care does does improve with age.
The market place alone won’t fix the mess.
The profile of the Montana population is one that is rapidly growing older, sicker and disabled.
This is compounded by a shrinking population of younger workers in the prime of their lives to work and pay taxes to support services for the older, sicker and disabled..
The primary source of funding for health care is our Uncle. You know, the one in DC.
Federal payments, like Medicaid, Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), foster care and child care, are on the decline in an absolute sense [after all, funding those wars put pressure on domestic spending] or the state most pony up more state money to secure federal funds. In other words, for every federal dollar, the state must provide a specified match in state monies.
The feds have complex formulas to determine how much each state may receive. Depending on how you look at it, the competition for funds is a race to the bottom.
Medicaid payments to states for health care are made on the basis of how poor [or wealthy] State A is compared to its 49 counterparts based on per capita income. The weaker a state’s per capita income is compared to the other states, the larger the payment and the lower the matching rate. So, for states like Montana whose economic performance have improved in recent years, we stand to lose federal money because the economic fortunes of other states have declined at the same time. This means, we may have to spend more state dollars to receive the same number of federal bucks.
The best line of new GOP candidates is the one about not accepting “a single dime from the federal government.” Without federal money, Montana would have no meaningful health care of any kind, especially in rural areas. We literally could not afford to take care of our own.
The wars, coupled with an improvement in our economy in a comparative sense, means we will receive millions of fewer “dimes” for health care.
So, the question is? Will the Republicans have the political fortitude during the 2009 legislative session to support backfilling the lost federal monies with state tax dollars?
My advice is to vote for the D.
After all, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Just ask the Republican candidates who don’t show up at the cattle show.
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.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Which Way to Go?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)