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.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
A Sunday morning reflection
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?
" . . . 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?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Energy: The Last Frontier
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.
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
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
2008 Election: Education
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)