Narrow escape: special legislative session ends

In spite of (or perhaps because of) threats floated by Republicans in the Montana House to pass a fire-fighting funding bill and then adjourn, peaceful agreement was arrived at and the session appears to be over. Notably absent was the kind of take-no-prisoners strong-arming from Democrats that was so prominent during the regular session and during the special session called to finish the final budget this spring.

The real reason for Republican firmness was legislators like Sen. Sam Kitzenberg, who is most widely known because of his opportunistic party-switching after having been given an unadvertised state job by the governor. Kitzenberg wanted to use the session to find other ways to spend money. OK, it was "for the sake of the children," so no-one should have had the audacity to dare oppose Kitzenberg.

Kitzenberg would of course love to have extra education spending credited to him in the Democratic primary. He is campaigning to be the state's educational Grand Poo-bah -- which apparently pays more than does the state job he currently has.

That "for the sake of the children" act begins to wear thin after awhile -- and one suspects that his Democratic primary opponents would have raised a fuss within the party had he used the special session to gain an advantage over them.

Senate President Mike Cooney perhaps knew as much when he joined with Speaker Scott Sales in quashing any ideas of using the special session for anything but funding fire-fighting. It's not that Cooney might not have wanted to spend money, but out-of-control special session spending would have hurt Democrats more than Republicans in the coming legislative elections, so enlightened self-interest likely was at work.

Although Charles Johnson's article equally credits Democratic and Republican leaders for keeping the special session under control, notably absent were Republican plans to spend more money. It was the Democrats who appear to have had more grandiose plans and dreams for the session. In other words, it was the Democratic legislators who needed to be reined in, both on extra spending and on the expansion of powers for the state executive branch.

(Although we Republicans did get blamed for wanting to spend more money in the regular session on fire-fighting rather than on hiring more tax collectors -- silly us with our silly priorities.)

Anyway, it's over, and we can watch our wallets a little less closely -- for the moment, anyway.

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.

Eastern Montana -- random political notes

Oil Money grab, redux: A couple of weeks ago, Montana Headlines brought an article in the Sidney Herald to our readers' attention, in which we learned that a retired Univ. of Montana environmental studies professor -- Rep. Ron Erickson, D-Missoula, was attempting to lay his environmentally clean hands on dirty oil money in order to spend it in his own backyard (well, he proposed that the revenues be distributed according to population, which amounts to the same thing.)

In a follow-up article, we learn that the bill was tabled in committee, which means that it would now take 51 votes on the floor to "blast it out of committee," and that isn't at all likely to happen. Looks like Eastern Montana dodged a bullet there.

"A slap in the face of Eastern Montana": Speaking of dodging bullets, we yesterday briefly mentioned the attempt by Sen. Wanzenried, D-Missoula, to set up a deal whereby the state would buy Plum Creek land around Missoula -- and then sell off public land in Eastern Montana in exchange.

We watched these proceedings with interest on television, and the best line from Sen. Dan McGee, R-Laurel, in his spirited (and successful) opposition is the one given in the title of this segment (and quoted in the Gazette.) The Gazette continues with McGee's comments:

"Well, I guess if we want to make a park of everything west of the Continental Divide, this is the way to do it," McGee said.

He criticized the bill for targeting the land of one company "at the expense of the people east of the Continental Divide."

We note that Lane Larson, D-Billings, crossed party lines to vote with the good guys on this one, and that our loyal Eastern Montana guy -- Sam Kitzenberg -- voted with his new masters in Missoula and Helena instead of with his fellow Eastern Montanans.

Sen. Jon Tester tries to wow the provincials by phone: The Miles City Star reports on the conference call that our newly-minted Sen. Jon Tester had with Eastern Montana journalists a few days ago.

Tester is quoted as saying "We need affordable health care. That could suck all my energy." The story goes on to say that Tester is on the Senate Energy committee and so will assign a staffer to brief him periodically on health issues. With a straight journalistic face, the Star reports that Tester said he would "focus his attention on energy issues."

We're confused... wasn't health care going to suck all his energy? Or does he need to focus on energy because he won't have any energy left over? We are going to have to read John Halbert's pieces for the Star more closely in the future -- one wonders if Tester's staffers will pick up the apparently tongue-in-cheek treatment that the paper in one of our favorite towns gave him.

Tester waxes 9/11 as he answers questions about the St. Mary's Diversion project, saying that "it's not if but when a disaster strikes," and talking about what will happen "if it blows up." (Are terrorists targeting the project?) But he has a solution -- "start moving dirt."

And the direst warning of all is that it's not just a northern Montana thing: "if this project fails, it will affect the economy of the whole of Montana, and it will impact the whole Northwest." Tester forgot to add "the nation, the world, and beyond..."

It certainly isn't just something that would affect just a few people in the Milk River area, and it could be that a problem with the St. Mary's diversion would shake Seattle and Portland to the core, but we doubt it.

And for the pièce de résistance, there's this beauty about global warming: "We want to make sure the polar ice caps don't melt and Glacier Park doesn't have to change its name."

As we've said before, we sure did trade up when we elected Jon Tester.

And to think, he's the more intelligent and articulate of our two Senators.

State employee legislators -- part 2

Rep. John Sinrud's bill to ban sitting state legislators from accepting paid positions as state employees passed the Montana House 51-49. In spite of the fact that Republicans pointed out that this bill had more ethical logic to it than does the ban on legislators getting employment as lobbyists for two years after leaving office -- something that Democrats wanted -- only the Republicans were behind this particular reform.

Sinrud pointed out that both the Missoulian and the Bozeman Chronicle support his bill -- something he isn't used to. He jokingly said that he hoped their support wouldn't kill the bill. (Note: stricly speaking, the Missoulian editorial expresses a belief that the practice of giving a legislator a paying state job is already prohibited by the Montana Constitution. It doesn't suggest whether it believes the matter should be addressed through the legislature or through the court system. We were unable to locate quickly the Chronicle editorial.)

There were a couple of misleading points to the AP article and Gazette headline. First, the headline (like the title of our own blog entry) misleadingly implies that under this proposed law, state employees couldn't become legislators. All would be banned, however, is having a sitting legislator accept a paid state position. If the legislator ran as a non-employee, he would need to stay that way. It is an issue of transparency. It would not prevent individuals who are already state employees from running for the legislature -- voters can sort out for themselves whether they think there is a potential conflict of interest or not.

Second, the article ends by saying that Rep. Kevin Furey, D-Missoula, objected because the bill would prevent legislators from joining the Montana National Guard. Rep. Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, quickly pointed out, however, that the Montana Constitution specifically allows legislators to join the state guard or militia, so that argument was a red herring -- the article should have reported Milburn's part of the exchange, since most readers would rightly object to a bill that would prevent anyone from joining the Guard.

All of this was, of course, an unintended consequence of the Kitzenberg party-switch, a switch tainted by appearances of impropriety since he had, just a few months before, accepted an unadvertised state job from the governor.

Given that the Democrats are currently portraying themselves as the party of transparency, one would think that they would want to defuse this as a future campaign issue by helping pass this bill. The party-line vote indicates that we can instead expect that this particular piece of ethics legislation will be shot down in the Democrat-controlled state Senate. The campaign ads for 2008 on this subject are already writing themselves.