Ron Tussing -- the cost to the taxpayer continues to rise (and the Gazette continues to ignore)

Billings Mayor Ron Tussing, tired of only getting paid a few hundred a month as Billings mayor (he apparently didn't read the not-so-fine print on the contract and has been, according to gossip, been discontented with the mayor's pay from day one) is now running for the PSC District 2 spot against incumbent Commissioner Brad Molnar.

As much as so many in our fair city would love to see this guy leave Billings and move to Helena, it needs to be kept in mind that we already tried that tack once, paying him several hundred thousand dollars to leave, only to have him pocket the money and then run for mayor in direct violation of (at least) the spirit of the agreement.

We hope that the residents of PSC district 2 will have the good sense to re-elect Brad Molnar -- and expect that they will. But might we suggest that if Tussing is by some chance elected, that the City of Billings file an injunction to garnish his wages to pay for the damage he has done to our city's finances? He should be able to keep a few hundred a month (maybe the same that he gets paid to be mayor) to live on, but the rest of his salary should go to the City of Billings.

Today's Billings Gazette reports that the bill for the Feuerstein lawsuit is up to $1.6 million, of which insurance will likely only pick up a third. More than $1 million will have to be paid by the taxpayers of Billings.

Par for the Billings Gazette course when it comes to Mayor Tussing, the article amazingly never mentions Tussing's name, even though as then chief of police he was at the center of the lawsuit against the police department, and even though he is now running for higher office and the public has the right to be reminded of his centrality to that lawsuit (jurors interviewed after the case indicated that Tussing's testimony and arrogant attitude was particularly damning.)

To be sure, Tussing was not the only person responsible for that debacle, but he was the guy in charge of the police department, and it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Gazette not to remind readers of Tussing's connection.

Think Burns and Abramoff -- editorial guidelines seem to be that you can't mention one in the Gazette without mentioning the other, correct? By the same token, the Feuerstein case shouldn't be mentioned without including Tussing.

Anyway, the number you read is right. More than $1 million that will be billed to the taxpayers of our fair city. Thanks, Mayor Tussing.

There is plenty in the MH archives about Ron Tussing, such as our 5-part series of posts on the Feuerstein case entitled "The House the Ron Tussing Built," which will have to be reprised as this campaign goes on. But first, interested readers can turn to our initial post about Tussing's PSC bid, and the followup piece that was prompted by how popular the first post was with commenters in a frenzy to defend their honey Ron Tussing and attack Commissioner Molnar.

The PSC 2 race will be quite a doozy -- stay tuned. If our last couple of pieces on Tussing are any indication, there won't be long to wait for further comment.

Charles Johnson needs to pay a little more attention

We realize that all of the attention these days is on the Democratic Presidential primary, but allow us to suggest to the usually precise Charles Johnson of Lee Newspapers that if he is going to mention the Republican primary in the midst of the Democratic hoopla, he should get the story straight.

Here is his throwaway passage taking note of the Republican Presidential primary, only to dismiss it:

On the Republican side, the names of John McCain, the presumptive nominee, and Ron Paul, will appear on the ballot Tuesday, but the results are meaningless. The state Republican Party held a Feb. 5 caucus of 1,600 party and elected officials, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney winning the state's 25 delegate votes. He dropped out of the race shortly thereafter.

The results will be meaningless? One can admittedly make a case for it, but not for any of the reasons that Johnson includes in this passage. To the extent that the Montana Presidential primary can be said to be meaningless, it has nothing at all to do with the Montana GOP caucus. Why? Because the winner of that caucus, Mitt Romney, dropped out (as Johnson correctly notes.)

This means that every single one of Montana's Presidential delegates are again completely up for grabs.

There is a case to be made for the Montana GOP primary being meaningless. For instance, Sen. John McCain has had the Republican nomination sewn up for months. In that sense, Montana's primary will have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the nomination. Just like the Montana GOP primary in every other year.

One could also make the case that the primary is "meaningless" because the delegates themselves are actually selected at the state convention by delegates chosen at individual county conventions. Again -- just like always. Nothing new. The Montana presidential primary has always been a non-binding "beauty contest."

But on the other hand, one would be hard pressed to find an example where the majority of Montana's delegates to the RNC didn't go to the winner of the Montana presidential primary. So the primary has historically been pretty binding, as a practical matter. As Montana Headlines pointed out recently, from a historical standpoint, we should be able to feel pretty confident that Montana Republicans choosing between Sen. McCain and Congressman Ron Paul will indeed determine the makeup of the Montana delegation to the RNC convention in Minneapolis in September.

But Johnson doesn't make either of those legitimate cases for the GOP primary being "meaningless," but instead refers to the caucus, which has no bearing whatsoever on whether the 2008 Montana primary is meaningful or not.

Mr. Johnson has probably forgotten more about Montana politics than Montana Headlines will ever know, and he -- without question -- sets the bar for fair, solid political reporting in Montana. But in this case, he seems to have neglected to do something very basic -- fact-check. A simple call to the Montana GOP HQ asking them "is your June presidential primary meaningless because of the caucus?" would (we hope) have revealed something very different from what Mr. Johnson wrote.

And quite frankly, more interesting as well. A weak McCain showing in the primary against Ron Paul could, for instance, be a sign both to Obama and to the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr that Montana is a good place to expend resources in hopes of a repeat of 1992, when Bill Clinton stole the state with a narrow plurality when a Republican center-right candidate (Bush I) and an independent libertarian right-wing populist (Perot) split the remainder of the vote.

The Presidential primaries between John McCain and Ron Paul may be meaningless in other states, but with Montana's quirky political climate and large numbers of libertarian-leaning swing voters who are not given to reflexive loyalty to any party, June 3rd is going to give us plenty of tea-leaves to read. And the results will be meaningful.

Think about it: the Democrats seem to have nominated another George McGovern, while the Republicans can be fairly said to have nominated another Bob Dole. Now that will be a cage match for the ages -- especially in an unpredictable state like Montana, whose voters will likely have trouble getting excited about either of these candidates.

__________________________________________

Update: Carol, over at Missoulapolis, has already posted on this matter, graciously pointing out the Montana Headlines discussion on the very real relevancy of the Montana Presidential primary on the GOP side.

Her commentary is must reading -- especially the part where she tactfully implies what we will now state with brutal directness: the McCain campaign has been completely MIA in Montana. We had hoped that when Sen. Burns took titular control of the McCain campaign shortly before the caucus, that this would be the start of seeing some real organization in the state. We had hoped to see John McCain at our state convention or doing a short tour of Montana this spring or early summer, knowing that he will be tied up with bigger swing states later in the season.

Maybe something is going on behind the scenes, but if so, it is the ultimate stealth campaign. Bumper stickers for McCain are rare. Yard signs in Billings are non-existent -- probably because one would need to go to the McCain store and buy them for $20 a pop. Hello?

________________________


Addendum number 2: Someone in the Gazette comments section again mentions something that pops up wherever Ron Paul supporters are making their case. The individual claims that since Ron Paul came in second in the Montana caucus and since Romney dropped out, Paul should receive Montana's delegates.

Only one problem with that. Such a provision was never in the Montana GOP rules, and it would be quite surprising to learn that any state has any such rule. When someone drops out, rules usually either stipulate that the candidate dropping out can direct the delegates to the candidate of his choice -- or that they simply return to being uncommitted. In Montana's case, there is no provision for Romney to direct them to McCain, so the delegates are up for grabs.

What Paul did at the February caucus is irrelevant at this point -- after all, had Romney dropped out of the race prior to the Montana caucus, would any of Romney's votes in that caucus have gone to Ron Paul? Highly doubtful. The question is whether he can perform well enough in the Montana primary to justify giving him any delegates to the RNC this fall.

Thumbs down on the Gazette's coverage of tax rebates

The Billings Gazette editorial page rightly gives a "thumbs down" to the IRS sending out a postcard to tell everyone about the tax rebate they will be getting. Well, some people will be getting those checks, but not the people who pay most of the taxes -- but we won't get into that part of it. After all, as Sen. Baucus implies in his postcard, those who make more than a certain amount are "undeserving" of a tax rebate.

Which brings up a criticism of the Gazette. Surely, the Gazette editorial board members also received Sen. Baucus's post-card, crowing about the stimulus package checks that would be coming people's way. That, too, was at taxpayer expense.

So why the selective indignation? Why criticism of the IRS for sending out a postcard, but no criticism from the Gazette editorial board of Sen. Baucus's flagrant abuse of his franking privileges in an election year? Even some folks on the left noticed and were not amused by this waste of taxpayer money.

After all, it is arguably a part of the IRS's job description to inform taxpayers about changes in tax law. What is Sen. Baucus's excuse -- other than the fact that it is an election year, and he's running short on campaign cash (not)?

Sen. Baucus wasn't even a part of the loop in designing the stimulus package (so much for being the 4th most powerful Senator in Washington) and had to add some window-dressing to the legislation after the fact.

Montana Headlines has accepted that there will not be a viable challenge to Baucus this year, barring unforeseen circumstances (which can, of course, always arise.) But the way that the press takes it easy on Baucus is maddening, and it probably contributed to the unwillingness of any higher-profile Montana Republican to enter the race. That's no excuse -- the Montana GOP should have been able to prevail on someone to step up to the plate, regardless of the odds.

But every time we see the Montana press coddle Sen. Baucus like this, it becomes harder to blame the Republicans who chose not to challenge him.

Sen. Tester and earmarks

The ever-vigilant Western Word has told the story that amazingly enough (note: sarcasm alert) didn't get told in the Billings Gazette today.

The Gazette notes that Sen. Tester, like Sen. Baucus, voted against a moratorium on earmarks. Earmarks are a common way that pork-barrel projects get put through without debating the merits of the project.

There is a case to be made for earmarks, so the vote is not necessarily bad for Montana. The point, as Western Word notes, is that during the campaign, Tester used earmarks as a baseball bat to beat then Sen. Conrad Burns over the head.

Tester's spokespeople are now trying to say that he never opposed earmarks, unfortunately for them, Western Word has done the research:

That reply is not true. Not even partly true. During an October 9, 2006, PBS debate in Bozeman, Tester said, “I don’t support earmarks, period.” A few seconds later, he added, “I’m not for earmarks.”

A link is provided to check out the video of the debate.

So why isn't the vigilant Montana press doing this kind of homework, and asking hard questions of Sen. Tester? Why doesn't the Gazette article mention Tester's constant beating of the drum against earmarks in his campaign challenge to Burns?

There are a few options that Tester could say and be truthful, but one of those options would not appear to be the lie that he has chosen to use: that he was "never against earmarks."

So what could he say and be truthful and believable?

"Look, I was just clueless, and didn't know what I was talking about back then. I was wrong. I didn't know that earmarks were good for Montana -- or that they would be good for my later political posturing.

I just said what I needed to say to get elected."

Or...

"Look, I never thought there was anything wrong with earmarks, and I knew good and well that once I was Senator, I would earmark with the best of them in order to bring spending projects to Montana so I could get re-elected.

I just said what I need to say to get elected, and knew I would likely get a free ride from the press on the issue."

Montana Headlines has time and again pointed out that Tester has repeatedly failed to support real earmark reform -- and it's not because there haven't been any opportunities to sign on to meaningful legislation. There have been plenty. This is just one of many examples of where "squeaky clean" Sen. Tester campaigned one way and is playing the Washington game in quite another. Not that this should surprise anyone -- it certainly doesn't surprise us.

Too bad the Montana press, which rode to Sen. Tester's rescue in his campaign against Sen. Burns, isn't showing any signs of playing "watchdog" on any of these questions. That watchdog role doesn't seem nearly as important now that Gov. Martz and Sen. Burns have been dispensed with.

The Billings Gazette and its improperly reported campaign contributions

Montana Headlines would really be remiss were we to ignore the good job that David Crisp and the Billings Outpost have done in highlighting (with appropriate levels of caution) the sticky situation that the Billings Gazette has gotten into due to its involvement in "Celebrate Billings." This organization campaigned for mill levy increases in Billings.

The Gazette made in-kind contributions of essentially free (there was some "creative accounting," it seems, so it is taking time to tease out the details) advertising to the group. It should be made clear that the Gazette doesn't appear to have tried to hide anything. The contributions seem to have been reported, but what is at issue is whether the proper reporting and filing procedures were followed.

The Outpost pieces are all worth reading.

One of the interesting things is that there seems to have been foot-dragging on the part of the Billings Gazette.

The Gazette was informed in mid-October by the Commissioner of Political Practices that it was required to file as an "incidental political committee," but it isn't clear from the reporting that it ever did so. As we recall, once a candidate or political entity has been told to file something regarding campaign finances, there is usually a very short (often 5 day) window in which to comply.

Instead, the next item in the time-line appears to be a letter from the Gazette dated late November, written to the commissioner of political practices.

It would seem that the right thing to do would be for the Gazette to file immediately as they were told they should do -- and then try to straighten it out after the fact if they felt that the Commissioner was wrong in his decision and instructions to them.

Is this what happened? It isn't completely clear, unless we missed something in the published reports.

We would agree with Crisp:

Naturally, I was skeptical about the whole Celebrate Billings project from the git-go. Daily newspapers exert considerable influence just from their natural role. To try to leverage additional influence using nonprofit partners stretches my understanding of what a newspaper's place in the community ought to be.

Indeed. We hope to hear more on this as information comes to light, and one hopes that the Gazette will keep its politicking to the editorial page in the future.

The Gazette editorial page begins its honeymoon with Roy Brown

The Billings Gazette editors certainly picked a great day to run an editorial about the Old Fund liability issue -- right after Sen. Roy Brown set a date for the formal launch of his campaign for governor, and the day before the scheduled formal announcement.

The piece itself is a typical Gazette editorial that throws together a bunch of mushy alternating statements, first putting the 2003 Republican legislature in a bad light and then acknowledging mitigating factors and shared blame between the parties involved. But tempted as we are to critique, once again, the turgid prose and confused organization of Gazette editorials, our emphasis today is on content.

The piece culminates with highlighting then House Majority Leader Roy Brown's sponsorship of the bill that borrowed $23 million from the Old Fund as part of a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to address a projected $232 million budget deficit, although the editorial does acknowledge that the bill had overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Gazette editorial writer then wraps up with a final "pay as you go" scold (presumably Gazette editorials at the time were advocating $23 million in addition tax increases or program cuts -- we can't find it in the Gazette archives, but maybe it's hiding somewhere.)

In short, the net effect of the piece seems to send a not-so-subtle message that Republicans are fiscally unreliable -- not particularly helpful to Sen. Brown's campaign, given that he is rightly running his campaign at least in part on the reckless 40% state spending increase we have endured over the last 4 years.

One wonders, though, whether the editorial writers at the Gazette bother to read their own newspaper.

You see, Gazette reporter Jim Gransbery -- on the very same day, wrote an excellent article that includes key information about what happened in the 2005 legislative session that was left out of the editorial. But not once in the editorial is the year 2005 even mentioned, even though presumably the editors got a sneak preview of Granbery's piece.

Yes, right there in the news section of the Gazette itself is the rest of the story. Namely, the story of what happened in the very next session after the money was borrowed from the Old Fund:

When the state's financial situation improved, Sen. John Esp, R-Big Timber, introduced a bill in 2005 to repay the Old Fund, but the bill was tabled on a party-line vote in a committee controlled by the Democrats, (Sen.) Brown said.

He said Esp approached the governor's budget director, David Ewer, about repaying the money, but nothing came of the overture.

Ewer said Tuesday he recalled vaguely Esp's effort, but his office did not take part in any of the hearings of Esp's bill.

Brown said that with a $1 billion surplus in the state's checking account this year, the Schweitzer administration made no effort to repay the money when the Legislature was in session.

Isn't that fascinating? David Ewer only "vaguely recalls" GOP efforts to repay the money, and apparently didn't bother going to the hearings about a bill that would have paid back the money in 2005 -- obviating the need even to be discussing this issue in 2007.

Given the budget director's, shall we say, colorful performances in the last legislative session, we find it hard to believe that he would pass up an opportunity to weigh in publicly with his opinion.

Unless, that is, the executive branch and the 2005 Democratic legislature was in such dither to get down to spending as much money as possible that they didn't want to have their allowance cut by $23 million plus interest.

And then, there was a $1 billion surplus this last session. Couldn't the executive branch have done with a little less of a spending spree and cut $23 million free somehow?

The 2003 legislature did what it had to do in the face of a deficit -- if anything, Sen. Brown and the Republican legislature should be praised for finding a comprehensive solution for situation it faced. They raised some taxes, but avoided raising taxes that would hurt the economy and jeopardize future tax revenues. They cut spending, but by borrowing a little of the government's own money avoided even deeper cuts.

Republicans had faith that the economy would improve, and that the money would then be available to replenish the fund. And at the very next session, that's exactly what they tried to do -- to no avail.

So, why didn't the Gazette editorial mention any of this? Why didn't it mention the events of 2005?

Maybe there's more to the 2005 story than Gransbery was able to dig up -- but then why didn't the Gazette hold off on on an editorial that prominently features Sen. Brown in a negative light until that paper could get the story straight?

Was it more important to get that editorial published the day before Sen. Brown's formal announcement of his candidacy for governor?

Rep. Rehberg and the SCHIP veto

Now that President Bush has unsurprisingly vetoed the SCHIP expansion passed by Congress, voices on the left (as well as certain editorial boards) are curiously using the event to critique Denny Rehberg -- who actually voted for the bill.

Ostensibly, the message that these voices are sending to Rehberg and to all of Montana is that Rehberg needs to prove his worth by convincing Republican Congressmen to change their minds and vote to over-ride the President's veto, even though on the first go-round, those Republicans voted against this bill.

This is an obvious no-brainer for Republican Congressmen who voted against this SCHIP bill. If they vote to over-ride the veto, then they can fairly be criticized as having been heartless wretches deep down inside (reflected in their first vote,) and as having only voted for the bill the second time under withering pressure from the "good guys" -- i.e. they caved in, and have no principles.

Democrats running against them will thus have two talking points against them in the upcoming elections, not just one -- talking points that will hurt those Congressmen with the Republican base as well as with "swing" voters.

So it is not surprising that those in the know are writing off any realistic chance of an override. It would be suicidal and unprincipled to change one's vote on legislation that hasn't been altered to address one's concerns.

So, what should Rehberg be doing at this point? Certainly not what the Billings Gazette editorial board urges him to do (namely twist Republican arms.) Rehberg would be well advised not to trust the wisdom of advice that is offered by those who go after Congressmen and the President with hyperventilatory language:

"Bush puts politics first, U.S. children last" reads the histrionic Gazette opinion headline.

Right. Bush puts kids dead last. Behind every other government program, segment of the population, or request for money. Bottom of the heap. In the dustbin.

Glad we cleared that up.

And in another restrained and measured turn of phrase, the Gazette editors say that President and others who voted against this legislation are "wrong at best and downright heartless at worst."

Got it? Downright heartless. They grind poor kids under their heels. And maybe even enjoy it.

No, Rehberg should ignore the Gazette's advice and do exactly what he is doing -- stand by his vote for the legislation, saying that enough changes were made to it to satisfy his most important objections to the original Democratic House bill that he opposed.

Rehberg did what good legislators do -- he outlined what changes he preferred, and when he got enough of them, he gave in a little, too, and voted for the legislation.

But twisting fellow Republicans' arms to over-ride the President's veto? Think again. Not a good idea, both because the President's objections to the bill have some merit and also because it won't work.

Democrats know that no-one is going to be able to make an over-ride happen, and thus their rhetoric calling for Rehberg to work to engineer one in the House is an attempt to set up our Congressman for failure.

What Rehberg can and should be doing is to call for the Democratic leadership to stop procrastinating, and rather get right to a vote for an over-ride. Democrats are instead dragging the vote out for 2 weeks in spite of the fact that an over-ride isn't going to happen. Which shows that whatever other motivations they may have had, in this particular phase of the game they are angling only for political gain, and not for the kids.

Presumably Sen. Baucus will wait until he's run as many SCHIP campaign ads in Montana as he wants, and then tell Harry Reid that he'd like a vote. For the sake of the children, of course.

The program as it exists is safe, having had legislation passed to keep it going, but it needs to be settled with final legislation that includes a reasonable expansion of the program.

It is furthermore entirely possible for Congress to do something incredibly unusual -- actually negotiate with the President to see what kind of legislation that he would actually sign that would expand and strengthen SCHIP for children in genuinely low-income families. And doing so in a way that has long-term sustainability -- and that won't undermine private insurance programs.

Until now, Congress has chosen to try to craft a "veto-proof" bill, rather than to craft a bill that the President wouldn't veto in the first place. This is a legitimate attempt, but need we point out that the final bill they passed wasn't veto-proof? Which makes one wonder whether Democratic Congressional leaders like our Sen. Baucus intended simply to provoke this veto in the first place. Just how many changes would have been necessary to get 15 more Republican votes in the House (and probably a President's signature thrown into the bargain?) Probably not all that many.

There will be an over-ride vote once Democrats have played enough politics with children. It will fail. And then Rehberg can be right in there, working to craft a compromise with the President that will help just as many low-income children in Montana, and that will actually get the President's signature.

Remember this: Rehberg originally supported the House Republican version of the bill, which would have expanded SCHIP funding and coverage for the kids who need it -- and, which the President would have signed.

Rehberg made a good compromise in giving this legislation a try, and is to be commended for being someone willing to work with the other side. Now he can fairly call on his Democratic colleagues to stop playing politics, and to craft an SCHIP bill that will actually be signed into law.

Because a bill signed into law is the only kind that will actually help Montana's kids.

Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

"Costs of wildfires go to lawmakers": Or so reads the headline in the Gazette to Jennifer McKee's article. Hope springs eternal -- could it be that the tab for fighting wildfires was going to be split personally between Tester, Baucus, and Rehberg?

That might go a long ways towards explaining why Jon Tester is seen posing for photos in a nomex firefighting outfit as much as in a business suit lately.

But no, it is going to be us taxpayers footing the bill, after all.

More than that, the governor wants a bigger fund at his disposal and discretion. $16 million isn't enough, so he wants $25 million.

Let's hope Speaker Sales holds the line on that one.

Baucus votes to raise taxes on domestic oil production: Doug Mood of the Montana PSC, writing in the Missoulian, points out that Sen Baucus voted to raise taxes on domestic oil production. Such taxes raise the cost of gas at the pump (and for us to drive long distances regularly in Montana, this is no small matter,) raise the cost of doing business for those who use a lot of fuel (i.e. agriculture,) increase dependence on foreign oil (our domestic oil producers have to compete with foreign producers.)

Baucus was sticking it to domestic oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico, but indirectly this still hurts Montana's oil industry -- both production and refining.

Still waiting for a conservative "Golden Pen": This week's "Golden Pen" award from the Gazette editors goes to a writer who states that since the big tax surplus came from a strong economy rather than overtaxation, homeowners should donate their refund to charity. Nothing wrong with the exhortation to be charitable -- but we're waiting for a Golden Pen Award to go to someone who thinks Montana's taxes are too high. We'll be waiting, and waiting...

Montana is Canada's health-care backup system: In the AP article found in today's Gazette, a broad range of responses to the birth of Canadian quads in Great Falls due to health-care shortages in Canada are reported. There were some really interesting ones. Try this one, from Canada:

An official with the Calgary Health Region defends the move to send the Jepps to Great Falls.

"We did not have the capacity to take four new Level 3 babies, so the call goes to Edmonton and to Vancouver and across Western Canada to find out if there is bed space," explained Don Stewart. "We had found across Canada there were not four Level 3 beds available so that's when we looked to Montana, which is the closest facility to us with reasonable care and within a reasonable distance. That was only done after exhausting the options here at home.

"They (American critics) don't have all the facts and information, obviously," he added.

Stewart said there are 21 Level 3 incubators in Calgary, but a staffing shortage meant only 16 were in use when the Jepps were giving birth. Staffing levels will be increased by this fall, he added.

Um, actually we did have all the facts and information. The facts are that there are (as we pointed out) 7 cities in Alberta alone that are larger than Great Falls and that Calgary alone is larger than the entire state of Montana. The only additional information provided by this Canadian official is that the Canadian health-care system can't provide enough nurses to take care of those it is committed to helping.

Is this supposed to impress us with the superiority of Canadian health care?

And try this one from Jack Goldberg of "Friends of Medicare":

"It's clearly our view that the U.S. system is going to meet some demands better than ours, particularly for those who can pay the whole shot by themselves. But overall, the American system is far more expensive. And, of course, we all know it fails to insure some 50 million people," he noted.

"I think we need to appreciate that it's because of our publicly insured system that this couple was able to get access to a hugely expensive service in the United States that may very well be denied to tens of millions of Americans. So even what happened there is a point in favor of our system - that these people were able to get there," said Goldberg.

Let's get this straight. Is Goldberg implying that if a Great Falls couple without health insurance found themselves suddenly pregnant with quads -- they would have been sent to Canada for free health care, or that they would have been left to have their babies under a bridge?

One suspects that the quads would have been born right here in Montana, and that hospitals and doctors would have written off the costs that couldn't be met by state or federal assistance programs that might help.

In short, there are Canadians with health "insurance" who don't get treated, and Americans without health insurance who do get treated. Which is worse? How many Americans would want to suffer for months or even years on a waiting list for "elective" treatment like a hip replacement -- consoled by the fact that if they ever get it, it won't cost them anything?

Wyoming girl makes good: Incoming White House Press Secretary Dana Perino is an Evanston, WY native, and will be taking over for Tony Snow. This is a tough and thankless task, as Snow has discovered, and Perino is to be commended to stepping into those very big shoes.

Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

More kindergarten smoke-blowing from the Gazette editors: One would think that proponents of full-day kindergarten in Montana such as the Billings Gazette editors would be content with the fact that the program was rammed through the 2007 legislature in spite of other, more pressing, educational spending needs in Montana, and in spite of a lack of evidence that full-day kindergarten increases long-term educational attainment.

Last week, Montana Headlines pointed out that Montana's ACT scores were above the national average, with only 13 states having higher average scores -- many of whom use the SAT as their primary exam for college-bound students, thus inflating ACT scores.

The Gazette editors, however, take that same information and make the case that since Montana's ACT scores didn't increase last year, that it was because Montana hasn't had full-day kindergarten.

In other words, since Montana students 13 years ago had half-day kindergarten rather than full-day kindergarten, their 2007 ACT scores were lower than they would otherwise have been.

Maybe, just maybe, the quality of post-kindergarten teaching has a little more to do with an 18 year old's ACT scores than does whether that student as a five-year-old had an extra 3 hours a day in kindergarten.

Beyond this, there are a couple of problems. As MH pointed out back in January when the kindergarten wars were raging in the legislature, a Kansas Dept. of Education study on full-day kindergarten revealed that in 2001, there were only 12 states nationwide that required that full-day kindergarten be offered. One presumes that 7 years earlier than that, when Montana's 2007 ACT-takers were suffering under the primitive conditions of half-day kindergarten, even fewer than 12 states required that full-day kindergarten be offered. Remember that only 13 states scored higher this year than Montana on the ACT. Do the math.

Add to this the fact that given the fact that 40% of Montana's population was born outside this state, at least a fair number of the students taking the ACT in Montana this year went to kindergarten in other states.

Advocates for choosing to spend millions of dollars on full-day kindergarten rather than on other educational needs are long on rhetoric and short on logic.

Some of them are charged with teaching our children to think logically.

Others, like the Gazette editors, are presuming to teach the general public.

As was pointed out at the beginning of this segment, one would think that they would be content with having won the legislative battle, and would leave the matter alone at this point.

Except that, as educators across the state know, the funding provided by the legislature is just startup money and part of the ongoing funding for a single biennium -- each district has to come up with its share of funding full-day kindergarten. Every year. On top of all other educational needs.

So advocates like the Gazette editors aren't particularly fond of information that indicates that Montana students are doing very well -- such as this year's ACT scores. Unfortunately, we won't know whether full-day kindergarten is going to help until 2020 -- if then.

In other vital Gazette editorializing: ... city officials are scolded for not changing light-bulbs on the "Welcome to Billings" sign, and tut-tutted for not cleaning our "defining element." Slow news week.

Shocking news about Montana's Washington delegation: They are trying to bring federal spending to Montana. Really? Too bad we don't have a Senator on the Appropriations Committee. Tester's win against Conrad Burns, with the assistance of all of Montana's newspapers, means that instead of having a senior Senator in the majority on the Appropriations committee -- we have no Senator on the Appropriations committee.

Interestingly, the biggest single request was an intelligent request from Rep. Denny Rehberg that addresses both the loss to the Great Falls economy of part of Malmstrom AFB's missile mission and the vital need to secure our borders:

...$150 million for P-3 acquisition, or unmanned aircraft to patrol the border, for the Northern Border Air Wing at Great Falls International Airport.

The Wall Street Journal is worried about Mike Huckabee: In what amounts to a hit piece on Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose surprisingly strong 2nd place showing in the Iowa straw poll has ignited his Presidential candidacy, Brian Carney criticizes Huckabee for (eghad!) speaking in political generalities rather than hyper-specific policy proposals.

But it is clear that what really worries the WSJ (a paper that MH generally likes very much) is that Huckabee has a populist appeal that doesn't bow down to Wall Street interests.

Mike Huckabee v. Fred Thompson: In the latest dead-tree edition of National Review, Byron York's cover article on Fred Thompson begins, interestingly, by telling the story of one of the first times that Thompson has shared a podium with another candidate, at the annual meeting of the American American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC.)

Ironically, that candidate was Mike Huckabee, whose suddenly flourishing campaign may pose one of the biggest challenges to Thompson's candidacy.

Huckabee is what is historically the most electable of candidates -- a governor, and a Southern governor at that. Since Thompson has been counting on wrapping up the Southern primary vote, this spells trouble for him.

As MH has said repeatedly, Republicans have looked at Giuliani, McCain, and Romney -- and indicated that they prefer "none of the above." Thompson's great appeal is that he theoretically has the tools to be "none of the above," but it has always been predicated on whether he can go from 0 to 70 in a very short period of time. In short, whether he has the stuff to be a presidential candidate -- not at all an easy task.

If some of his recent interviews are any indication, he is not as quick a study as had been hoped. His appearance following Huckabee was apparently more of the same:

(Huckabee is) in top shape, on his game. He gives a speech that is tight, well-constructed, and impassioned, all from one scribbled note-card. By the time he's finished, the ALEC members are on their feet.

After a break, Thompson enters to great applause; the crowd is clearly ready to love him. But this, as it turns out, is not his day.

York continues with more of the events, and concludes:

When it's all over, most observers agree that the former governor has run rings around the former senator. 'The consensus of the crowd was that Huckabee wowed 'em,' John Wiles, a state senator from Georgia, tells me. 'Thompson's speach was a disappointment.'

Another attendee said that "Huckabee is right on, has a great delivery, is very articulate -- all the things Thompson wasn't."

Not a good sign for Thompson, but it is a very good sign for conservatives that Thompson is not our only hope in the race for the GOP nomination.

Rehberg, SCHIP, and the Billings Gazette editors

You'd think that by this point, even the Gazette editors would feel a little foolish trotting out the "for the sake of the children" mantra that has been so devalued in recent years because of cynical politicians using it to get things they want -- but that that don't have anything to do with children.

In their disjointed editorial earlier this week, the Gazette editors praised Montana's Democratic Sens Baucus and Tester, but scolded Wyoming's Republican Senators and House Republicans Denny Rehberg and Barbara Cubin.

OK -- we got that part.

Right in the title of the editorial, they state: "Veto-proof coalition needed for children's sake." They fall short of admitting that a more limited bill like the Senate bill could actually, with some work, become what the title of their editorial says they want -- a veto-proof bill that provides more low-income children with health insurance.

If some Republican concerns are taken into consideration during conference committee, it might perhaps be a bill that wouldn't be vetoed at all:

The Senate bill, authored by Baucus and Republicans Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch, is strictly an SCHIP bill and it would be less costly than the House bill.

Sounds like something that should be done for the sake of the children, doesn't it? The Gazette editors even advocate for this bill:

The conference committee, which will include Baucus, needs to agree on a bill that's more like the Senate version than the House version.

So what's the problem? If it's for the sake of the children, and it is a strictly SCHIP bill, then the problem is solved, isn't it?

Well, apparently not, since the rest of the editorial appears to have been written by the evil twin alter-ego of whoever wrote the first half of the piece.

It goes into a somewhat incoherent ramble about how the House bill has things that need to be included in the final bill (interestingly, largely just those things that would fail to make the bill veto-proof and that have nothing to do with kids,) then a confused paragraph saying something about "Medicare for Kids," then throwing in the metaphorical kitchen-sink
by talking about working families without health insurance (not a problem to be discounted, but not the subject of SCHIP, either,) and ending with a long discussion of how the House SCHIP bill is better because it would supposedly "improve Medicare."

(Sound of head being scratched.) Now let's get this straight. The purpose to this opinion piece is to say that there needs to be a veto-proof bill "for the sake of the children" -- but most of the editorial (at least the evil doppelgänger half) is spent explaining why the SCHIP bill needs to address things other than children's health care (such as Medicare for senior-citizens) in such a way as to draw a veto that would likely be sustained.

One is tempted to say that the editors were cynically trying to pull a fast bait-and-switch, the murky purpose of which was to deliver a message that Republicans don't like kids but Democrats do. And one is tempted to speculate that the foggy organization of the piece was a cynical attempt to make the editorial difficult for anyone to argue against. But one doesn't want to be cynical.

As a side-note, we felt like we were experiencing a bit of déjà vu. And then we remembered the last time we commented on such a striking combination of turbid prose and raw partisanship in a Gazette editorial.

It was when we commented on the Gazette's initial shot across Denny Rehberg's bow in the wake of the first social call he paid to the editors after the 2006 elections (worth linking to just for a reprise of the photo.)

Since SCHIP has been identified by Democrats as a bat that they can use to smack Rehberg about a little, it is our good Congressman who is the implied target of this latest editorial.

It seems that someone at the Gazette has issues with Rehberg, and that is fine. But can't we see an anti-Rehberg piece from the Gazette editors that has a little snap to it for a change?

Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...

Baucus cashing in his CHIPs: Montana Headlines has made it clear in numerous posts that a civilized society that can afford it (not all civilized societies are wealthy, and not all wealthy societies are particularly civilized) should provide basic healthcare to children in low-income families. Whether their parents are low-income because they are disabled, lazy, down on their luck, substance abusers, from under-privileged backgrounds themselves, or whatever, really shouldn't matter.

Our goal should be to give every child the opportunity to become a productive member of society -- suffering from poor health care in childhood is a good way to ensure that they won't make it. And right now, we can afford it -- something that may not always be the case, by the way.

So Sen. Baucus is to be commended for working to expand CHIP eligibility to include more currently uninsured children, and the Republicans who worked to craft this compromise deal for a $35 billion increase are also to be commended.

Noelle Straub's somewhat snitty start to her article in today's Gazette doesn't do good service to illuminating the discussion, however:

In this corner: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, his Democratic colleagues and some Republicans, fighting to help low-income kids get medical coverage.

In the opposite corner: President Bush, his administration and some conservatives, fighting against an increased government role in the health care system.

She eventually gets to some of the serious Republican concerns about this particular program, but the message is clear from the first paragraphs: Democrats like kids -- evil Republicans like kids, too -- but only to eat them for dinner as appetizers.

She mentions that the bill passed out of committee 17-4, so there really must have been a lot of conservative opposition.

There are serious points to be made, though, and Republicans have been right to ask questions and demand changes in the legislation as originally written.

Why are so many adults -- even many adults without children -- on a children's healthcare program? Is this a cynical way to avoid a straight-up debate over the expansion of government-funded healthcare for adults?

And what evidence is there that Democrats are genuinely concerned about possible adverse effects if the government undermines the current system of private health insurance, usually jointly funded by employer and employee contributions?

"I am deeply worried about further expansion will really lead to the undermining of the private health care system, which would take the greatest health care system in the world and convert it into a mediocre health care system," (President) Bush said.

As indeed he should be.

Of course, Michael Moore would have us believe that medical care in Cuba is better than that in the United States -- we're that bad.

The sentiment has been echoed by some here in the Montana blogosphere. If someone needs major surgery, though, it would be interesting to see if any of these fans of Cuban medical care would be willing to go to Cuba to have that surgery.

And not at a cushy Havana hospital that serves the nation's elite -- but rather in the Cuban equivalent of backwater communities like Billings, Missoula, or Bozeman.

How about it? Any takers? Would you rather be someone (even without insurance or money) needing a life-saving surgery in Billings -- or someone in an equally out-of-the-way Cuban town with full free health care?

Anyway, that is a digression -- CHIP (for children, that is) is one of Baucus's few good policies, and he is understandably riding it for all he's worth as he comes into an election year.

Oh what a relief it is (that Pat Davison lost): Charles Johnson has apparently been reading Montana Headlines. Well, not really, but it is interesting that today's "Horse Sense" column echoes what these pages have said repeatedly -- what a disaster it would have been for Montana (not to mention the Montana GOP) had Pat Davison won the GOP primary for governor.

Along the way, Johnson reminds us of numerous oddities, to say the least, in Davison's campaign. He closes with some harsh words about Billings businessman Mike Gustafson and his relationship to organizing a debate at MSU that seemed to be stacked to favor his friend and business colleague Davison.

Johnson's viewpoint is understandable, but it would seem that given how many people were taken in by Davison, Gustafson could be cut a little slack, rather than dragged into the conversation about Davison's breathtakingly bold criminality.

Plugging the local economy: Happy days are here again! The Billings Farmer's Market is back in business for the summer. It's good for your health (both the food and the walking,) good for encouraging local food producers, good for downtown Billings businesses that normally are closed or quiet on Saturdays, good for musicians who need more venues to hone their craft, and good for the soul.

Now, if only the weather would cooperate. See you there.

The Gazette Golden Pen Award: ...predictably goes again to someone who scolds Republicans. We're still waiting for a conservative with a Golden Pen. Granted, since we conservatives aren't that bright, it may be a long wait.

Thought-crimes legislation: A good opinion in the Missoulian recently addressed legislation that tacks on additional penalties for so-called "hate-crimes."

No matter the motivation, violence cannot and should not be tolerated.

But is an assault more heinous because the victim was attacked because of their religion or sexuality? And should the prosecution be more vigorous?

We think not. All people of this country should receive equal protection under the law - equally swift and forceful.

“We simply cannot accept violence that is motivated by bias and hate,” Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said in introducing the Senate version of the hate crimes bill.

We agree. Nor should we accept violence that is motivated by greed or jealousy or rage or mental illness.

We also should not accept any attempt to stifle free speech. And Smith's legislation could lay the foundation for making so-called “hate speech” a crime. And that we must resist. However ugly the words.

Well-stated. Hate-crimes legislation amounts to putting people in jail (or keeping them there longer) for their thoughts and feelings -- distasteful as those thoughts and feelings might be.

Max the Mongoose having pipe-dreams about the war on drugs?

We all say things that once they are out of the mouth, we do an -- "oops!"

But really -- Baucus pledging a "mongooselike tenacity" in bringing drug-fighting money to Montana?

Question: If Mike Lange had said that, would the Billings Gazette headline have read "Lange vows spirited fight against drugs," (as it did for Baucus)?

Or would the Gazette headline have read something like "Lange likens himself to mongoose" or "Lange vows to fight like a mongoose"?

Or perhaps the headline would read "Mike Lange, who earlier this year went on an expletive-laced tirade against Gov. Schweitzer, likens himself to a mongoose."

_____________________________

On another note, one wonders if Baucus was being tongue-in-cheek when, in discussing his goal of stopping drugs in Montana, he said:

"Sure, it's a pipe dream."

Somehow, we doubt it.

Gazette editorial by a dishonorably discharged soldier: a poor choice

The Billings Gazette ran an opinion piece by Camilo Mejia, who was convicted of desertion by court-martial in 2004 when he failed to return to military duty after a 2-week furlough.

He was sentenced only to one year in prison and a dishonorable discharge (a mark of shame in and of itself for anyone who has served in the miliary.) Given that the traditional punishment for desertion is execution, Mejia got off pretty easy.

As is typical with so many "courageous" protesters, Mejia didn't plead guilty and take his punishment like a man. He instead used various claims under international law in an attempt to avoid conviction and punishment.

Mejia has since become a darling of the anti-war movement, or at least that part of it that doesn't understand the concept of honesty and honor when serving in uniform.

The Billings Gazette editorial staff should be ashamed of itself for printing a version of Mejia's apologia -- on the day after Independence Day, no less.

Immigration update, pt. III -- Sens. Tester and Baucus change their position, Billings Gazette doesn't notice (or doesn't want to)

Montana Headlines said on Sunday that while our Democratic Sens. Baucus and Tester had been voting in ways that reflect the views of most Montanans when it comes to the current illegal immigration measure being debated in the U.S. Senate, they bear watching.

And yesterday they proved that point when they voted against the Allard amendment. Simply stated, the amendment was "To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas."

Sounds pretty simple, and it would be right in line with the rhetoric from Sens. Baucus and Tester that we reported some time back, in which both said that illegal immigrants need to go the back of the line behind those trying to enter the country legally.

The amendment failed, as the above link shows, but it is worth noting that the amendment was supported by the other four members of what we had described as a core group of 6 Senators who were consistently voting in a common-sense way that supports upholding the law. The other two Democratic Senators in that group of 6 that Sens. Tester and Baucus had been consistently joining were Sens. Dorgan of ND and Byrd of WV.

Those two Democrats were joined by 6 other Democratic Senators and 23 Republicans in voting for the failed amendment.

Perhaps Sens. Tester and Baucus are beginning to show their true colors and are falling into line behind Senator Kennedy on his bill -- we'll have to see. This was a major test -- and Montana's Senators failed it.

Their votes make no sense in light of what they have previously said and in light of how they previously voted. Again, we wonder if their early votes and rhetoric were just window-dressing.

We note that the Billings Gazette failed to report on this vote at all. But earlier, the Gazette trumpeted Tester and Baucus's earlier votes and rhetoric against illegal immigration.

One would think that a reversal in position like this would be newsworthy -- but apparently if it won't shine a nice light on our Democratic Senators, it won't make the pages of the Gazette.

__________________

Our Senators also voted wrong on the McConnell amendment, which would have required voters to present photo identification when voting in person. This is a reasonable requirement. Given that many liberals are anxious to put photo identification into the hands even of illegal immigrants, we're not sure what the problem was with this amendment for Democrats -- unless they expect it to hurt them at the polls.

Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

MYOB: The pharmacy owners in Great Falls who have decided not to carry birth control pills have been catching all sorts of grief, which really is amazing.

Part of the reaction is probably due to the fact that most of the people in a tizzy over it are from Missoula, where it is commonly believed that Great Falls has only one pharmacy, that the nearest alternative pharmacy for Great Fallens is in Calgary, and that even if there were more than one pharmacy in Great Falls, the residents wouldn't be bright enough to think of switching to the other one.

If the pharmacy had dropped a particular class of drugs because they believed the pharmaceutical manufacturers were making an immoral amount of money -- or if they had dropped a class of products because the carbon footprints of the factories were immorally large, they would be receiving the Granola Peace Prize right about now.

Go figure.

Golden Pen Award: Speaking of receiving awards, while we rarely read the letters to the editor in the Gazette, one thing that has caught our attention over time is the "Golden Pen Award." Doing a non-scientific survey based on the Gazette's search engine, it appears that the award invariably goes to a letter expressing a liberal sort of opinion -- except when it is a generic feel-good letter. Just one more objective piece of evidence that we Republicans really are a pretty unlettered bunch of knuckledraggers.

Rep. Rehberg on the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill: Nothing fancy -- just a straight no-nonsense assessment of what a bad bill the current immigration "reform" measure really is. We have approved of how Sens. Tester and Baucus have voted so far on this bill. Rehberg's position is even stronger, if anything -- and somehow we imagine that we won't have to be watching his votes, when the time comes, as closely as we will have to watch Sens. Baucus and Tester.

Bill Kennedy's recent mailing for fundraising tries to make the case that Rehberg simply does President Bush's bidding. He'll have a hard time making that case, since Rehberg has done a good job of finding the right balance of party loyalty (without which a lone Congressman is dead in the water) and of knowing when the views of Montanans differ from those of many Republicans in other parts of the country. Just check out his ACU rating, and why he doesn't have a 100%. This is just one more example of Rehberg's natural bent toward a genuine Montana populism -- which is, of course, a mostly conservative sort of populism.

A CPA's opinion on whether Montana is "open for business": A nice piece in the Missoulian. No matter how much Democrats like to talk about "out of state tax-cheats," it is hard to escape the uneasy feeling that the real targets of the empire-building going on in the Montana DOR are the 20% of Montanans of modest means who already pay 60-70% of the taxes in this state -- not billionaires in Bel Air. This editorial strengthens that suspicion.

What Montanans should be demanding to see is concrete evidence and concrete examples of out-of-staters breaking Montana's tax laws, and how changing laws to address those specific situations will affect Montanans. The debate on this in Helena during the last session was long on rhetoric and short on specific examples -- in that regard, each party failed to make its case effectively.

Article on Mike Lange

Today, the Billings Gazette published a piece on Mike Lange's personal financial misfortunes, as if the poor guy hadn't been beaten on enough.

We assume, though, that this is part of a series of articles, and that tomorrow's edition will feature a prominent Montana Democratic politician, alternating between a discussion of the details of his personal financial situation and a discussion of his past and future political career.

If it doesn't appear, not to worry -- it probably just means that reporters are still busily doing background research.

In other breaking news, just in case someone missed it, the article tells us that Mike Lange had a YouTube moment in the closing days of the regular session of the Montana legislature some weeks ago.

Gazette gives out statesmanship awards -- Montana Headlines offers the Gazette editors some modest math suggestions

The Billings Gazette seems to have the same problem that Mike Lange was criticized for having -- not knowing when to remain silent.

The governor got his budget, essentially unchanged from what was originally proposed. He got his $400 election-year "check in every pot." There was virtually nothing that was originally proposed from a budgetary point of view that went the Republicans' way. One would think that enough to satisfy the Gazette editors, but apparently not.

No, there just had to be a final editorial defining statesmanship on the part of a Republican: whoever voted with the Democrats was a statesman. Whoever didn't vote for their proposals wasn't. Let's take a look at a few highlights from the editorial:

The compromise that allowed lawmakers to complete their first and most crucial job was, in the end, possible only because a small number of Republican legislators joined most of their Democratic colleagues in support of a budget compromise.

The editorial thus begins with a fallacy: that the final bill was a compromise. How exactly does a budget that is not substantively different from what the executive requested a compromise? If the Gazette is going to label this a compromise, they need to point out the substantive ways in which this was a true compromise on spending. Was a 0.6% reduction in spending from the
Democratic Senate's bill (one that brought spending back to what the governor requested) a significant compromise?

If the "no" voters had their way, the special session would still be running and costing taxpayers money.

Now, the Gazette gives the reader a false choice: vote for the Democratic spending proposals as written, or stay in session with legislators spinning their wheels. The editors seem very concerned about $250,000 in special session costs, and indignantly take up the mantle of fiscal responsibility by advocating passing the bills and going home in order to save money.

There are other alternatives. We're no budget wizards, but let's throw out a few numbers -- and we'll try to round up and give the benefit of the doubt at every point, to account for the fact that we haven't run this by any legislative budget analyst and may be completely off.

The Senate's budget was $7.9 billion, of which 40% was general fund money. We'll ignore the federal taxpayers' portion of the tab and stick to state general fund. That makes for about $3.2 billion.

Now let's suppose that a real compromise had taken place. The governor wanted (and got) a 23% increase in spending, while Republicans would probably have wanted something on the order of twice the rate of inflation. Inflation has been roughly 2.5% in 2007, so double that to make it 5%, and double that to account for the fact that this is biennial spending -- 10%.

Now, we should be able to agree that the legislative races were essentially a tie. Democrats controlled the more powerful chamber due to a defection (and would have controlled it anyway, since one doubts that Lt.Gov. Bohlinger would have voted with his own Republican party on tie-breakers,) but Republicans had more votes cast for them statewide. The governor is Democratic, so call him equal to a house of legislature, and since the governor's race is winner-take-all we can't titrate that one. So in this hypothetical compromise, rather than being met half-way at 16%, the governor would get 2/3rds (67%) of the increase in spending he asked for.

But wait, there's more! To be generous, we'll spot another 3% for Mike Lange's expletives, and another 5% for the fact that Republicans are just plain nasty creatures who really ought to be forced to move to Wyoming -- just to round it up and give the governor a hefty 75% of the increase he wanted. Meeting 3/4 of the way like that would amount to about a 19% increase in general fund spending -- about 4 times the rate of inflation (wouldn't we all like our wages to get increases at that rate!)

A quick calculation (again rounding up) translates that into a $3.1 billion general fund budget, as opposed to $3.2 billion. That would be $100 million less in spending in this theoretical compromise (and still a hefty $500 million increase.)

Supposing the legislature special session costs $50,000 a day (the number thrown around was $38,000 but we'll round it up to be sure,) this means that the legislature would have to stay in session 365 days a year for 5 1/2 years in order spend that kind of money.

Let's say that the steaks were 2 inches thick, and all of the whiskeys were doubles, and call it 2 1/2 years -- in other words they would have to stay in session past the end of the next general session to spend $100 million.

There were about 6 weeks remaining until the drop-dead date of July 1. Working 6 days a week at $100,000 a day (those 2 inch thick steaks and double-shot whiskeys again) all the way to that deadline, that would mean a cost of $3.6 million for the longest possible special session at this ridiculously high hypothetical cost.

Now, just suppose that this hypothetical legislature arrived at the Montana Headlines hypothetical compromise, saving $100 million in spending.

There would have been a net savings to the Montana taxpayer of more than $96 million dollars.

So what is the fiscal problem? The legislature being in special session, as the Gazette claims, or just plain spending too much money in the budget?

Perhaps the Gazette might have saved us all a lot of money if they had been calling for statesmanship on the part of Democrats, urging them to make real compromises with Republicans. But statesmanship, Gazette-style, isn't defined as Democrats giving up anything to Republicans, is it?

The Gazette editors scold the intransigent Republicans who didn't vote for the "compromise" by praising the few who did, saying that "they understand that getting everything one wants is not an option."

Well, actually, apparently it is. Just ask the governor.

Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

"Head 'em up, move 'em out": Legislators are accused of spending their time drinking whiskey and eating inch-thick steaks, all given to them by lobbyists, for the last 90 days. One has to think, though, that Helena has to be glad to see this bunch leave town. The session has ended, so legislators are heading home, and the governor is going to chase squirrels in the mountains with Jag. No matter how much whiskey and how many steaks they buy in Helena, the locals have to be glad to have a break from all of this.

One would think that with a projected $1 billion surplus, the legislature would have been able to come up with a way to put money away for a rainy day, give long-term across-the-board tax relief, and still give healthy increases to every money-thirsty department in Helena. One would have thought wrong.

Over in North Dakota, where the House and Senate were also fighting like cats and dogs over permanent property tax relief (and this is with both bodies controlled by Republicans,) they came up with what sounds like good legislation -- legislation that we imagine could have gained bipartisan support here in Montana:

North Dakota property tax payers who also pay income taxes may take a credit on their income tax returns equal to 10 percent of the property taxes they pay. The credit is capped at $500 for individuals, and $1,000 for married couples and companies. Any unused credit can be used to offset future income tax bills, or be rebated as a voucher, which then can be used against a future property tax bill. (SB2032)

Naw. North Dakotans (Republicans, no less) came up with it -- must be stupid.

When will the governor lasso him up some legislators?: No-one knows when the special session will be called. Apparently public opinion will drive this one. If public opinion is festering against Republicans, we may have to wait until June 30 for a one-day special session. If public opinion shows that Democrats are suffering just as much as Republicans, look for the legislature to be called back quickly, since as we recall, they have more seats to defend in 2008 than we do.

My huckleberry friend: A blow is struck for the local economy by ensuring that something labelled as being made from Montana huckleberries is actually made out of Montana huckleberries.

Gazette flunks out on editorial objectivity: While starting out saying there is plenty of blame to go around, a sentiment with which most Montanans would agree, the Gazette goes on to lay the blame at the feet of Republicans --

Yet a dissection of this failed session shows that the last clear chance to avoid the train wreck belonged to the House GOP leadership.

Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, refused for 10 days to take any action on any of the major spending bills approved by the Senate. The usual process (in our now-outdated textbooks) would have been for the House to accept or reject the Senate's amendments, and if the House rejected these major amendments, to form a House-Senate conference committee to hammer out a compromise.

That's the way the system is supposed to work. Instead, the crucial budget bills didn't move.

Yes, that's the way the system is supposed to work. But Republicans suspected that Democrats weren't serious about any sort of compromise on long-term property tax relief, and until tax relief is decided on, there was -- in their opinion -- no point in discussing spending levels, since the process would likely end up with a "whoops, sorry, no money for tax relief!."

Republicans had boiled their side of the compromise negotiations down to this single demand, otherwise giving in to the Democrats on every single point. That wasn't good enough for Democrats, who wanted to have their spending levels and eat their (or rather, our) taxes, too.

As it turned out, the Republican leadership, for all its gaucherie, suspected correctly, and acted accordingly. How the short-term politics will play out, we have no idea. The Expletive-gate scandal didn't help, and the fact that Republicans generally failed to keep cool wasn't helpful, either. Frankly, we suspect that most Montanans are so tired of the whole thing that it won't affect 2008 elections, except to keep more casual voters home -- a situation that often helps Republicans, although Democrats are clearly calculating otherwise.

Over at The Western Word, the opinion is that Republicans should have just taken what the Democrats gave them (which was essentially nothing) and gone home rather than allow a special session. Perhaps. And we may end up wishing the same. But for now, as long as Republicans already have a bad reputation with folks like the Gazette editorial writers, why not try to hold out for a real compromise -- a compromise that Democrats claim to be anxious to arrive at?

Billings Gazette headline misleads on legislative adjournment

In its on-line headline, the Gazette states that the Montana "Legislature adjourns without budget bill."

True, but it misses the point that the Senate Democrats elected (on a straight party-line vote) to adjourn, even though time still remained to hammer out a last-minute compromise. Apparently the Democrats gambled that House Republicans would be scared into voting for the original Senate bills:

House Minority Whip Bob Bergren, D-Havre, urged Republicans to adopt the spending plan passed by Senate Democrats, rather than carrying the issue over to a special session.

Um, if House Republicans were willing just to sign off on the Senate bills, that's what they would have done long before. So the Republican House followed suit by also adjourning, which was exactly the right thing to do.

Whatever the Senate spending bills were, they certainly were not compromise legislation. In our opinion, they were bad bills -- having exceeded even the executive branch's already excessive spending increases.

It would be understandable if Democrats and Republicans had come to an agreement to adjourn before the day was over, agreeing that there was an impasse that couldn't be worked out by midnight (or whenever the clock officially runs out.) Senate Democrats could at least have gone through the motions of trying to work out last-minute compromises. As it is, one wonders if they were quickly adjourning before peace could break out.

While Montana Headlines has expressed the opinion that Republicans ended up getting out-maneuvered politically, and while we are disappointed that the Republican leadership didn't stay cool, calm, and collected during the closing weeks of the session, we have to agree with Speaker Sales on one point: Democrats never really took the Republican House majority seriously.

Democrats were under no obligation to do so, especially since a couple of votes in Laurel could have left the body tied. Likewise, Republicans were under no obligation to treat seriously a one-vote Democratic Senate majority created by a party-jumper -- and when Republican candidates received significantly more votes state-wide in competitive legislative races than did Democrats.

It would have been best had each side taken the other seriously, and if both sides had acknowledged that election night was for all practical purposes a tie. But, neither side acted that way, so things turned out as they did.

Again, the Montana Headlines preference all along was for the House Republicans to stay steady and calm and just keep working. We knew that the situation alone was going to tempt them to get angry, and that it is normal politics for each side to try to provoke the other into acting out.

Some have commented that the Republican leadership in the House was just too inexperienced due to term limits. There is probably a lot of truth in that, but Montana voters decided that they wanted a more amateur bunch of politicians in Helena, and they call the shots. Others believe that Republicans chose the wrong leadership for this session -- perhaps so, but on the other hand, there are no do overs, so we will never know how a more "moderate" Republican leadership would have performed.

Only if the hypothetical alternative leadership in this hypothetical alternative session had ended up with spending lower than Democrats were asking for and real property tax cuts for all would they have been more successful. We'll never know how it would have turned out, so such speculations are irrelevant.

At the end of the day, when all of the theatrics and posturing and polemics and dramatics are swept aside, what was left on the table by Democrats for House Republicans to vote on were spending bills that exceeded what the executive requested (let alone what the House had voted for) and property tax cuts or rebates that were essentially the same as what the Democrats started the session proposing.

If there was substantive compromise on the table for Republicans to vote on, we missed it.

Republicans should not blame the governor for this impasse. While it is great when an executive is a skilled mediator who can bring Democrats and Republicans together to forge reasonable bipartisan compromises that bring the state together, that isn't in the governor's job description.

It is in the job description of legislators -- of both parties -- to pass appropriations bills. Regardless of which body has the "upper hand," and regardless of which party has the more polished leadership, we have a bicameral legislature, which means that those appropriations and tax bills have to be ones that majorities in both the Senate and the House are willing to vote for.

Let's hope that both sides return to a special session with a willingness to craft some genuine compromise legislation. That means lower spending than what the executive asked for and more substantial property tax cuts

Sunday roundup and branding

George Ochenski on toxic waste: The Missoula Independent has a great column by the inimitable Ochenski about the shenanigans in Helena. Read it all. He likens Republicans to the "monkey-wrench gang" (BTW, Democrats will be surprised to know that a lot of us old-fashioned conservatives actually have a soft spot in our hearts for the late Edward Abbey -- you've just gotta like a guy who was so MYOB that he made sure no-one knew where in the desert he was buried.)

He talks about "the Democrats’ strategy, if you can call it that...." And so on.

The most important section is this, though:

The budget battle isn’t the only game in town. Last week Republicans asked where Schweitzer’s energy bills are and when he expects them to be introduced. Evan Barrett, the governor’s point man on energy development, glibly replied the administration was still working on them because they wanted them to be done right.

Needless to say, since energy development has been Schweitzer’s single-minded focus for most of the last two years, it’s more than a little puzzling why his administration wouldn’t have had its package of energy bills ready long ago. In fact, Republicans and Democrats alike should wonder why these particular policy bills weren’t drafted long before the session started so Montanans could take a good hard look at what’s coming our way in the energy arena.

Indeed. Republicans are right to be somewhat dismissive of Democrats' complaints about the lateness and secrecy of the "split the budget" plan, especially since the administration surely knew the ball-park figure of a 23% increase in proposed spending -- but neglected to tell anyone until after the election.

But the lack of any ability to examine the proposed energy plans (which we assume actually exist) this late in the session is truly remarkable. And it should be recalled that when Republicans said about their "6-pack" that they were "still working on them because they wanted them to be done right," Democrats didn't think it was an acceptable response. And the GOP got their bills in a month earlier than the Democrats' energy bills -- a month and counting...

Episode IV: A New Hope: "We capitulated," House Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, told reporters .... He characterized the GOP offer as "holding out an olive branch" to Democrats.

We said a couple of days ago that we have assumed that Republicans always had a plan B in case Democrats refused to cooperate in any way in passing their appropriations bills.

Speaker Sales made a good move by giving Democrats two things:

1. Bragging rights: after all, the Republicans capitulated, and they can be quoted as having said so.

2. The ability, it seems, essentially to write the Public Health and Human Services funding bill -- funding it exactly as the governor originally wanted, if they so choose. Given the importance of this Department to key Democratic constituents, this is no small thing.

It is a good backup plan. Now, we expect that Republicans have yet another plan in reserve. For this plan, too, depends on some level of Democratic cooperation -- something that has been in understandably short supply. While there is hope it might materialize under these circumstances, there is no reason to expect it, and Republicans need a creative plan C.

The Butcher of Winifred: We're not exactly sure when Democrats are going to stop being surprised or shocked by Ed Butcher's inability to open his mouth (or now, type on a keyboard) without saying something goofy. In elementary school, disruptors were most effectively dealt with by not giving them the attention they seemed to enjoy.

With as many educators as the Democrats have in Helena, one would think they would know how to apply this principle. We suppose they're using one of those those new-fangled disciplinary methods -- you know, the one's that don't work.

Anyway, getting back to Butcher, it seems that when offered the option of replying to an e-mail enquiry by writing something like, "I regret to inform you that I really can't support the 'Indian Education for All' bill -- thank you for writing to express your concern," Butcher rather wrote an essay on Native American anthropology and linguistics. It sounded like he said that Indians communicated in sign language rather than by speaking because of the primitive nature of their languages.

Ordinarily, we would assume that Butcher meant that Native Americans didn't have written languages, and thus a lot of knowledge about them is based on speculative reconstructions and possibly unreliable oral traditions. But this is Ed Butcher, so we unfortunately have to assume that he wrote what he actually meant. Sigh.

He also was criticized by Democrats for saying that some proponents of the program were "semi-literate." Democrats were wrongly bent out of shape about this, since we believe Butcher was actually referring to the writer of the AP article, who wrote about the "department that overseas" the educational program in question.

Regardless, Montana Headlines is beginning to wonder whether the Majority Whip shouldn't, in circumstances like these, take his job at least "semi-literally."

An earmark by any other name: A Great Falls Tribune editorial talks with joy about the fact that our U.S. Congressional delegation managed to bring home a few of pieces of bacon: a housing project at Malmstrom, the purchase of some Rocky Mountain Front conservation easements, and funding for 3 northern Montana water projects.

Very nice. Funny thing -- we haven't seen much in the Billings Gazette about nice pieces of pork coming our way here in Billings and eastern Montana. And we probably won't, since Conrad Burns is no longer on the Senate Appropriations committee to look out for our interests, and we doubt that Sens. Baucus and Tester will be doing anything much to help Denny Rehberg look good by bringing much to his home-town.

We've said it before to the Billings Gazette editors, and we'll say it again: thanks for "helping out" the city and region that makes you money by working to defeat its most powerful and heart-felt advocate in Washington.

Where's Sam?: The Sidney Herald has an update from its area legislators, but Sam Kitzenberg, who represents half of Richland County, was again missing from the line-up. Does the Herald not invite him to these phone conferences, or is he not particularly interested in the Richland County part of his Senate District? Topics of conversation include concerns over excessively strict environmental laws that will hurt traditional energy development. We really want to hear from both Richland County senators on that and other subjects of concern to eastern Montana.

"A Zumboing we go": Steve Woodruff at the Missoulian had a good piece on the firestorm drawn by the blogging comment of one of the deans of American outdoors writing, Jim Zumbo -- including excerpts from Woodruff's interview with Zumbo himself. Zumbo made the seemingly innocuous comment that "assault-style" rifles were inappropriate for hunting, but then unfortunately went so far as to say that "game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods."

We apparently have been living in the same vacuum that Zumbo was, since like him, we had no idea that these had proliferated in some corners as hunting rifles. While we understand and fully support the concern that Zumbo's detractors have for 2nd amendment rights, we certainly have thought (as apparently does Woodruff) that the fire Zumbo drew was unfair and disproportionate.

Zumbo is a hunter's hunter, and a bit of a purist -- might we say "traditionalist?" Proposing restrictions on a particular firearm in hunting is not the same at all as banning it from ownership or from non-hunting recreational use -- there are all sorts of restrictions of this sort. The problem with Zumbo's critique was that he proposed legislating aesthetics rather than safety or "fair chase" principles.

Zumbo is contrite, and not because it will cost him money, but because he doesn't want "to go down in history as a guy who betrayed America's gun owners." One hopes that America's gun owners take a deep breath and forgive the poor guy. And all of us who write regularly on the internet should take note of this passage from Woodruff:

I tracked Zumbo down by phone the other day, bracing myself for an unpleasant interview with a defensive, possibly combative subject.

I was surprised to find him open, contrite, reflective and not even the least bit bitter. He was thoughtful and engaging. He struck me as a nice guy.

As we spoke, I wondered whether the critics who cut him down might have been less brutal had they talked with him instead of merely typing responses to the words they read online.

Where's my Senator?: Anyone who has been around the blogosphere is aware of the "gotcha" lectures given by self-righteous lefties to Denny Rehberg's staff. For the uninitiated, when Jon Tester said his schedule would be posted on the internet for all to see, Rehberg responded to questions by saying that anyone who called to ask has always been able to learn what he is doing.

So, a few folks made it their mission in life to call the Rehberg office daily to ask for a schedule, and have made much about the fact that they haven't received a copy. Rehberg of course should simply have done what Max Baucus did when asked the same question and mumbled something unintelligible rather than say something clear that he could be held to.

Anyway, kudos to the The Western Word for noting that the famous Tester schedule hasn't been updated since March 14th. Wonder what Sen. Tester was up to late last week that he doesn't want anyone to know about -- and we wonder whether liberal bloggers will be writing solemn tomes about Tester's honesty, since he promised that he would always post his schedule.