We noted that Speaker Sales and Rep. Sinrud weren't at the deal-making session in Helena. Many Democrats gloated about it.
What is interesting to note is that there was a far conspicuous absence at the meeting, per the news reports: Democratic legislators.
If we had any questions about who was behind the Democratic wheel on the last day of the session, this clarifies it as much as is necessary. No wonder Sen. Stapleton was so frustrated that day -- he thought that when he was negotiating with Sen. Cooney, he was talking to the decision-maker. Clearly not.
Showing posts with label Corey Stapleton.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corey Stapleton.. Show all posts
Friday, May 11, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Divide and conquer
While the Billings Gazette has its own report, the Great Falls Tribune gives a somewhat more detailed account of the proposed summit meeting in Billings between Democratic and Republican legislative leadership.
A few things jump out of the report:
1. While Rep. Mike Lange has taken a beating due to Epletive-gate, including baseless rumors (started by whom?) that he might be edged out of leadership, he is exactly right in insisting that the governor be involved in any talks and negotiations.
It is good that Speaker Sales is taking a more prominent role at this point -- listening to him on the final day of the session, one is reminded that the caricature of him painted by Democrats in the blogosphere is just that.
Based on the timing of the collapse of negotiations between Sen. Stapleton and Sen. Cooney on the last day of the session while there were still many hours to work things out, one suspects that Sen. Cooney is not able to make the final deal in the Senate, so why pretend that he is? There is a third person along on this date, so he might as well sit up front with the other two.
2. The expected mind games are going full steam, attempting to plant ideas into Republicans' head that certain of their number are in secret negotiation with the governor. In fact, the governor's comments can only be interpreted as a thinly veiled implication that he is talking to nearly everyone except the leadership:
"I've been speaking to a lot of other folks. ... They're frustrated with their own (Republican) leadership."
Well, maybe, but not because we want them to sign off on everything Senate Democrats propose.
A less confident leadership would feel undermined by their own people if they believed it. After all of the party-line votes that Republicans have held together on, though, it is hard to be terribly worried about this kind of smoke and mirrors.
This is especially true since no Republican is going to gain anything politically by undermining his own party at this point. Above all, none of this is personal or nefarious -- Democrats are just playing politics, and we'd be surprised if they didn't. So no need to over-react.
3. Democrats cannot assume that they are going to get to start negotiations where they ended in Helena on the last day of the session. Republicans had essentially, as we have written before, given in on all of the spending increases that the Senate wanted -- at least on a one-time basis, and they had long ago agreed to go along with the $400 election-year "check in every pot" nonsense.
The details that should have been worked out (and by all accounts were being worked out) was the extent of the permanent across-the-board property tax relief that Democrats would agree to in return. Since this was the only Republican request, not to come up with it in some form would have been an admission that the Democrats were not interested in compromise. Senator Cooney is too astute and experienced as a legislator not to see this.
An abrupt end to the session makes sense only from the standpoint of a plan to play for all the Democratic marbles. Republicans had nothing to gain by not cutting a deal on the last day of the session.
But regardless of who pulled the plug on those final negotiations from the Democratic side, a step is rightly being taken back by the House Republicans on spending proposals, with Lange now going back to talking about significant spending restraints on the proposed corrections and revenue department budget increases, and even in the "present law adjustments" that involve increases for existing programs.
This is exactly right. Republicans had given in on the spending increases, but had done so with the proposal of getting some sort of long-term property tax relief in return. With Senate Democrats refusing to come to an agreement on that, Republicans are now right to go back to their original position of pushing for much-needed spending restraint.
Montanans know a little about horse-trading, and it doesn't mean settling on the price that the seller initially asks for. Once they see that the Democratic idea of compromise was to give nothing on spending and to give nothing on long-term tax relief, Montanans should start to get the picture.
A few things jump out of the report:
1. While Rep. Mike Lange has taken a beating due to Epletive-gate, including baseless rumors (started by whom?) that he might be edged out of leadership, he is exactly right in insisting that the governor be involved in any talks and negotiations.
It is good that Speaker Sales is taking a more prominent role at this point -- listening to him on the final day of the session, one is reminded that the caricature of him painted by Democrats in the blogosphere is just that.
Based on the timing of the collapse of negotiations between Sen. Stapleton and Sen. Cooney on the last day of the session while there were still many hours to work things out, one suspects that Sen. Cooney is not able to make the final deal in the Senate, so why pretend that he is? There is a third person along on this date, so he might as well sit up front with the other two.
2. The expected mind games are going full steam, attempting to plant ideas into Republicans' head that certain of their number are in secret negotiation with the governor. In fact, the governor's comments can only be interpreted as a thinly veiled implication that he is talking to nearly everyone except the leadership:
"I've been speaking to a lot of other folks. ... They're frustrated with their own (Republican) leadership."
Well, maybe, but not because we want them to sign off on everything Senate Democrats propose.
A less confident leadership would feel undermined by their own people if they believed it. After all of the party-line votes that Republicans have held together on, though, it is hard to be terribly worried about this kind of smoke and mirrors.
This is especially true since no Republican is going to gain anything politically by undermining his own party at this point. Above all, none of this is personal or nefarious -- Democrats are just playing politics, and we'd be surprised if they didn't. So no need to over-react.
3. Democrats cannot assume that they are going to get to start negotiations where they ended in Helena on the last day of the session. Republicans had essentially, as we have written before, given in on all of the spending increases that the Senate wanted -- at least on a one-time basis, and they had long ago agreed to go along with the $400 election-year "check in every pot" nonsense.
The details that should have been worked out (and by all accounts were being worked out) was the extent of the permanent across-the-board property tax relief that Democrats would agree to in return. Since this was the only Republican request, not to come up with it in some form would have been an admission that the Democrats were not interested in compromise. Senator Cooney is too astute and experienced as a legislator not to see this.
An abrupt end to the session makes sense only from the standpoint of a plan to play for all the Democratic marbles. Republicans had nothing to gain by not cutting a deal on the last day of the session.
But regardless of who pulled the plug on those final negotiations from the Democratic side, a step is rightly being taken back by the House Republicans on spending proposals, with Lange now going back to talking about significant spending restraints on the proposed corrections and revenue department budget increases, and even in the "present law adjustments" that involve increases for existing programs.
This is exactly right. Republicans had given in on the spending increases, but had done so with the proposal of getting some sort of long-term property tax relief in return. With Senate Democrats refusing to come to an agreement on that, Republicans are now right to go back to their original position of pushing for much-needed spending restraint.
Montanans know a little about horse-trading, and it doesn't mean settling on the price that the seller initially asks for. Once they see that the Democratic idea of compromise was to give nothing on spending and to give nothing on long-term tax relief, Montanans should start to get the picture.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Economic patriotism for Montana
Boswell reports the venerable Samuel Johnson as saying, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." This quotation has been thrown around a great deal, particularly in America's heated internal debates about how to respond to the threat of terrorism.
We will leave aside the fact that this has never been our favorite quip by Johnson, since it reportedly was misdirected at one of our heroes, the liberal father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke. Johnson disliked Burke, in no small part, for the latter's advocacy of allowing the American colonies their independence -- and the fact that Burke was more than a match for Johnson's intelligence probably inspired some reflexive dislike.
Taken in isolation and used in a modern context, Johnson's remark has the effect of reverse psychology: if one expresses patriotic sentiments, one is, by definition, a scoundrel with scoundrelly ideas. Some Republicans, while perhaps not immediately thinking of Boswell and Johnson, may be having that reaction to Governor Schweitzer's comments reported in an AP article in today's Billings Gazette.
To the extent that Republicans are saying that Montana has a bad business climate that should be unattractive to anyone wanting to relocate to Montana, the governor is exactly right. Any Republican who fits this uncomfortable shoe should be made to wear it.
There is a danger, however, that his appeal to a sort of economic patriotism for Montana will sound as though he is saying "if you say that this or that tax or regulatory issue needs revamping, you aren't being a good Montanan" -- and to the extent that he is trying to stifle Republicans through such a comment, he is indeed playing the role of the patriotic scoundrel.
Having followed this legislative session closely, Montana Headlines can say with fairly assured confidence that the overall Republican message has decidedly not been that Montana is a bad place to do business.
The Republican underlying message can rather be summarized in a couple of points:
1. Montana once had a very bad tax and regulatory climate that discouraged business growth -- images like that can linger long after, and we aren't going to allow anything to take us back to those days.
2. Montana's business climate is indeed very good -- just look at the bulging state coffers and the minuscule unemployment rates.
That good business climate is the result of tax and regulatory changes enacted by a series of Republican legislatures and governors -- mostly over the loud protests of Democrats. We don't want to endanger any of the gains made.
3. Montana's business climate, while very good, still needs significant improvement.
Senate Minority leader Corey Stapleton, R-Billings, is quoted extensively in the same article, and in the course of those comments, shows why his colleagues chose him for his current leadership position. Rather than allow himself to be drawn out by the governor's accusations, Stapleton calmly sticks to the facts of history, and points out that Democrats are now embracing (and even claiming credit for -- the ultimate compliment) what they once opposed:
"Now everyone accepts (the tax cut) and says it is a good thing," Stapleton said.
While the governor says that "It's the same tired rhetoric for the past 20 years," Stapleton replies with the obvious:
Stapleton said Republicans need to "make a big squawk" to push tax relief through the Legislature. And each time they do, he said, the business climate improves.
Democrats seem not to notice that by saying that Republicans have been using "the same tired rhetoric for 20 years" (the governor is hardly alone amongst Democrats in saying this, so it would be wrong to single him out for criticism), they are saying that Republicans were wrong in their assessment of Montana's business climate for those 20 years. Yet the fact that they readily embrace the idea that Montana is now booming contradicts that very assertion.
The governor asks us to "please be helpful," and we quite agree. Any "sky is falling" Republican rhetoric about Montana's business climate is misplaced and harmful. We also believe that the Democrats would be wise to take Stapleton's comments to heart.
Don't make us squawk -- we don't enjoy it any more than you do. Just help us cut taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)