This year, of all years, would have been the year for the Tea Party to run to the right of Rehberg and keep him honest, bringing Tea Party constituents along for the ride. And yet not a peep from the Tea Party. It shows you, once again, how the Tea-baggers lack teeth (figuratively, as well as literally).
Rehberg is vulernerable to an attack from the Right. He voted in favor of the greatest invasion to Americans' privacy rights ever made, the Real ID Act, which would have required Montanans to carry what is essentially a Federal ID Card. (HR 1268, became law 2005.) That drives the black helicopter crowd nuts. The State Legislature, including every single (humiliated) Republican, had to step in and pass a law forbidding this breach of privacy and state's rights that Rehberg foisted on us.
He voted to buy eight Gulfstream corporate-style jets to ferry rich, important Congressmen around the globe, $54 million a piece, replete with LCD monitors, plush carpeting, and, (quoting from the brochure for the aircraft) "room for golf clubs and other executive conveniences" that Rehberg has become accustomed to.
His personal shortcomings have also come under public scrutiny lately. No, actually, I'm talking about how he got wasted, let a friend drive drunk, and ran up an estimated $1.5 million tab for health care and work comp claims for himself and his staff; and now a poaching incident, the kind that usually takes place when New York City slickers pay a guide an extra few thousand to break the law to get themselves a nice trophy.
Rehberg is lucky that no one told the Tea Party that he voted for every single bloated budget that George Bush put forward. These budgets spent more money than in any other eight year period in the history of Congress, and created the trillions of dollars of debt they're so upset about.
Dustin Frost is managing Nels Swandal's campaign for the Montana Supreme Court?
Swandal was the original judge assigned to preside over the case involving allegations that State Senator Greg Barkus - yes, a Republican from Kalispell - after all of the judges in Flathead County recused themselves because they had exchange political favors with Greg.
You might recall that last fall Barkus launched his boat on the rocky edifices just south of Bigfork after a night drinking across the Flathead Lake in Lakeside.
Everyone on board suffered severe injuries, but Dustin Frost is lucky to be alive.
Swandal was taken off the case after his ties with, including campaign contributions to, Republicans in every walk of life were revealed.
Frost, fortunately recovered and went back to work with Rehberg several months ago.
Now. Barkus's attorney is using every trick up his sleeve to delay and dicker to save Greg from donning prison issue and spending time in Deer Lodge. Given the machinations between the GOP and those who preside over the criminal justice system, coupled with normal amount of judicial intrigue with political big shots, Barkus might just beat the rap.
Had Swandal remained on the case, resulting from alleged negligence that almost took Dustin Frost's life, he would be in the midst of the maneuvering behind the scenes.
Instead, Swandal is off the case and an announced candidate for the high court.
And, Frost, who is a bright and capable fellow, now leads Swandal's campaign.
Go figure. What are the odds?
Or, is this simply a coincidence?
What next? Swandal wins (God forbid). Rehberg runs for Governor in 2012 and wins (OMG!). Frost selected as chief of staff.
The US Chamber of Commerce is declaring Montana a target on banking reform. With only six small and mid-size states in the mix, we can expect to see a healthy piece of the $3 million budget headed our way no doubt.
The Hill article portrays this as potentially being about seeking some changes to the bill. Frankly, a lot of this shit is in the weeds and well outside my areas of expertise, but my sense also is that here, as in healthcare, the Chamber isn't playing to amend or fix. They're playing to kill because a small number of their members care deeply about this sector of the economy.
Wall Street is obscenely out of hand, especially for a sector of the economy that fundamentally doesn't do anything. We don't need financial innovation. We need fucking banks that work. More of those, please.
Not sure what's going on over there in conservative brains. First, it's Ross Douthat pleading for "complexity" in film and literature instead of a simplistic good v evil dichotomy, and now it's Red State's Vladimir nihilistic sophistry on climate change:
One thing a scientist must know is how ignorant we are about a lot of things; otherwise, we don't need scientists to discover new stuff. But the remark points to a naive hubris that is pretty pervasive among a "consensus" in the scientific world.
Just fifty years ago, the few believers in "continental drift" were derided by the geologic establishment as kooks on the fringe of science (if not worse). But evidence accumulated, and the theory, repackaged in the '60s and '70s as plate tectonics, is now recognized as the grand unifying theory of earth science.
So-called "Progressives" have a tendency to evaluate everything in life as if it were a deterministic, zero sum game. What goes up, must come down. In with the good, out with the bad. What goes around, comes around. Input X necessarily results in Output Y.
But real life systems don't often obey these rules; they tend toward chaos and often lead to counterintuitive conclusions. In business, they often create examples of The Law of Unintended Consequences.
The Laffer Curve is a perfect example. To a "Progressive", if you want the government to have more tax revenue, you raise tax rates. Cutting tax rates only benefits "the rich".
But the real world is governed by the chaotic rules of economics and personal choices. Arthur Laffer made the simple observation that if tax rates are zero, tax revenue is zero. If tax rates are 100%, tax revenue is also zero. Somewhere in between is a maximum, and tax rates above that optimum rate actually result in less tax revenue.
Businessmen don't need to have this concept explained, so they tend to be conservatives. Academics, trade unionists and Hollywood types will never get it, so they become "Progressives".
Pretty funny stuff, eh? Of course, the plate tectonics idea is a good example - only it's the Vladimirs of the world who are the left-behind skeptics decrying climate change as kook-ish. As for calling progressives "deterministic" and implying they're simplistic? Bad maneuver using to the Laffer curve as evidence, that over-simplistic and crudely deterministic bow hastily scrawled onto a napkin in a 1974 political meeting and ever since used to support the most simplistic conservative tax-cut rhetoric, that raising taxes invariably leads to lower government revenue, and cutting taxes leads to greater revenue. (Both are canards divorced from the reality of the actual, complex marketplace.)
All this complex thinkin' leads Vladimir to this post: "The Unbearable Complexity of Climate," whose basic premise is that the climate is very complex and we don't understand it completely; therefore, it's possible climate change may not be happening, and, therefore, doesn't need to be addressed. Follow this line of reasoning to its ultimate, late-night-smoking-pot-at-college conclusion, and nothing is worth doing or believing because, ultimately, no system or object is capable of being understood completely. Not climate change, not the existence of your friends, and certainly not the Laffer Curve's efficacy (or lack thereof) for predicting tax revenues.
Why get out of bed in the morning when your alarm goes off, when there's a chance all life on the planet will be obliterated during your morning commute by a wayward asteroid?
If the climate is as all-unknowable as Eschenbach claims, then there's a chance that climate change is happening...right? And do you, in good faith, knowing that there's a chance - what with the unknowable-ness of climate - that climate change will make the Earth uninhabitable for humans, do you in good faith sit by, or worse, actively obstruct any measures that might mitigate the possibility of ecological disaster?
That, of course, is countering the argument with their own brand of sophism. In reality, climate scientists do have more than a passing familiarity of climate science, and there is actual evidence of climate change accompanying varying carbon dioxide rates. And we should probably form policy around the evidence at hand.
But just as Ross Douthat isn't really pleading for more complex movies about war, neither are these folks concerned about shades of gray in scientific discourse. They're all engaging in sophistry to obscure facts that are politically unpalatable to them. A climate change "skeptic" represents a political position, not a scientific one. Such a "skeptic" doesn't question climate change, he rejects it out of hand, and opposes any political solution to reduce carbon emissions. Not because there's a good reason to, but because it happens to stake out a position defined by political allies.
And to what end, is the question? To defend the interests of Big Oil?
I saw "The Green Zone" this weekend. Essentially, as AO Scott noted, the film did a pretty decent job of distilling the events and politics of wartime Bagdhad into the action/thriller genre:
To anyone who was paying attention in 2003 and after, this is familiar territory. Mr. Greengrass and the screenwriter, Brian Helgeland, deftly glean material from the historical record, and while they compress, simplify and invent according to the imperatives of the genre - this is a thriller, not a documentary - they do so with seriousness and an impressive sense of scruples. They have clearly studied journalistic accounts of the early days of the war, citing Rajiv Chandrasekaran's vivid "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" as a particular inspiration, and while the picture they paint of infighting among the Americans and growing factionalism among the Iraqis may not be literally accurate in every particular, it has the rough authority of novelistic truth.
At the movie's core is the discovery by an Army officer, played by Matt Damon, that the US government's justification for invasion - Iraqi WMDs - was manufactured.
And watching it made me feel outraged all over again. If anything, the movie should be a reminder of how awful, how devastatingly awful the last administration was, how sick the invasion was, how wrong its supporters were - especially after it was evident it was a sham, a setup, a con job.
Naturally the movie is irking conservatives, who are busy trying to resurrect Bush's reputation. Ross Douthat takes a novel approach for a conservative, and pines for someone to depict the "complexities" of the war, instead of turning it into some over-simplistic story of good vs evil. ("If only Hollywood could be more like George W Bush," writes FDL's Blue Texan, "and embrace a sophisticated, nuanced, shades-of-gray type of worldview - rather than so clumsily dividing the world into good and evil." Or read Daniel Larison's complete smackdown of Douthat.)
Of course, in a way - and not the way Douthat intends - the move is a little over simplistic. For starters, in "The Green Zone," there's much surprise when no WMDs are found and there's shock when it's revealed that the administration had a hand in manufacturing WMD intelligence. Of course, by the invasion, it was pretty clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that the intelligence from the Pentagon was suspect, to say the least.
That is, the move is an over-simplistic flick that augurs how the American public will remember the war, how most are already processing it. Basically, people are remembering that they were hoodwinked, when, in fact, most people had the evidence, heard the dissenting voices, and still supported the war. The public and the media galloped headlong towards Iraq under Bush's banner willingly, despite the plethora of reasonable and well-informed voices that showed there was nothing there...
We haven't had much opportunity to discuss the Montana Realtors' effort to foreclose real estate transfer taxes through a Constitutional Amendment this November, but this should be taken for what it is -- an invitation to more speculation that leads to housing bubbles and a "Please Change the Fabric of Our State" invitation for fancy pants characters from California.
More interestingly, the campaign is apparently hiring out-of-state signature gatherers, which makes sense since Montana's unemployment rate is currently so low.
From an email I just got from Terry Minow of MEA-MFT:
They're back!!! Paid, out of state signature gatherers were working this weekend in Helena. Melissa Case saw signature gatherers in front of VANNs IGA here in Helena. She visited with them and found out they were not from Montana, a violation of Montana state law. She also heard them mischaracterizing the ballot initiative they were asking people to sign.
How can you help?
Please let me know if you see signature gatherers in your town.
Talk to them, ask where they are from, and listen to their pitch. Don't challenge them-act like you are interested in signing-play along!
If they are not from Montana, or are not explaining the initiative truthfully, take notes-date, place, time, location, and what they said, and let me know.
Ask if they are getting some kind of bonus per signature.
If you can take a photo, that would be good too.
As you know, we got three initiatives thrown off the ballot in 2006 due to signature gathering fraud. Thankfully we were able to work with the 2007 legislature to pass initiative reform that requires signature gatherers be Montana residents and banned paying on a per-signature basis.
The summary of the initiative is below. While there is no realty transfer tax now, it is dangerous to set tax policy through initiatives and constitutional amendments-take a look at California!
I should note that I ran into some signature gatherers this morning on this very initiative. The team looked like they might be local, but I'd wager against it. There's something hilarious and deeply ironic about hiring a bunch of folks from out of state to pass tax policies helpful to people from out of state while spending lots of money talking about protecting Montanans. Maybe this whole thing is a front for that same outfit running the ads attacking Jon Tester on the imaginary bank bailout.
Either way, looks like we should all be ready for some big money to look to keep Montana as their personal playground.
The Republican Party in Montana is fracturing under the weight of a series of double and even triple contested primaries that threaten to sink the party's already deeply troubled other candidacies (Rehberg, PSC). The GOP's problems, which include infighting and ideological splits, lack of funds, multiplescandals at every level, hypocrisy, and crisis of leadership underline arguments made here on Left in the West that the Republican party in Montana is in desperate straits.
1-Certainly Koopman's efforts to primary moderates appears to be a factor in play, as well as general dissatisfaction with the poor way the party continues to be run. (See above.)
2-Another complicating factor is that those who had run under the Constitution Party banner in years past appear to be donning R's after their name and hoping to escape detection and pass as "mainstream" Republicans to increase their chances of making it into the legislature.
Most voters won't know what the idealogical background of these fringe candidates are until the person is elected, creating further problems for the Republican party down the road as they are forced to distance themselves from their own elected officials in order to avoid slipping further into irrelevancy.
races where a lone Democrat awaits the victor of a Republican three-way race, his party could have the advantage.
"If you have more than three people running in a primary, the odds of a poor candidate emerging are better," Elliott said. In other words, a candidate who might not be very appealing in a general election might squeak through a partisan primary with less than the half the vote.
4-Finally, too many primaries have a way of deepening the already cavernous splits in party factions as primary candidates seek to differentiate themselves with the endorsements of other Republicans, splinter groups, and special interests, thereby broadening the cracks out along the lines of these connections. This will further hurt Rehberg's ability to rally the support he's had in the past, and with all the scandals on his plate this year he's going to need all the help he can get.
When at its December 21, 2009, meeting the Land Board voted 4-1 to auction 1.3 billion tons of coal buried beneath the Otter Creek valley, it summarily ignored a landslide majority of testimony to the contrary. Over a hundred strong filled the meeting chambers at the Capitol that day requesting the Land Board save Otter Creek and keep the coal in the ground. In fact, the official public comment period on leasing Otter Creek coal ended with 9 of every 10 letters received rejecting the lease option.
The oppugning voices also condemned Otter Creek's parasite, the proposed Tongue River railroad. This thoroughfare, required to get the coal to market, must exercise eminent domain to cleave ranches and farms with a 121-mile stretch of track - each mile costing over $5 million and, if completed, wreaking disaster on the valley's water quality and irrigation, and threatening the spawning grounds of the endangered pallid sturgeon.
Fast-forward to February 8: Otter Creek's bid deadline closed quietly, without a single offer. But the lack of interest at 25 cents per ton didn't mean a lack of interest. DNRC knew this. The Governor knew this. And Arch Coal knew the state knew. And we knew that Arch knew the state knew. And somewhere Donald Rumsfeld was smiling. So DNRC wasted little time recommending the Land Board drop the minimum bid price 10 cents to better attract a suitor.
And the Land Board did just that, but not without holding another meeting on the newest proposal. This is, after all, a public process. And again, this time on February 16, the majority of oral and written testimony staunchly opposed leasing the land for a coal mine. And again the Land Board voted, this time 3-2 with A.G. Steve Bullock opposing, against public interest and in favor of sending a billion plus tons of carbon-heavy coal to out-of-state planet-warming power plants.
Fast-forward to today (or rewind to February 8?): The bid process is underway with a deadline Tuesday, March 16. Are bids expected? Not likely considering the Governor announced at February's meeting the new minimum bid price of 15 cents per ton was still more than double the state's appraised value of the coal. Will Arch Coal hold their cards for an even lower bid price? If so, they also run the risk of another Land Board member defecting and swinging a 3-2 vote against them. Or perhaps one of the five Democrats will motion to table the issue once and for all.
There is much at stake here: ranches, farms, a watershed, our health, our climate, and setting a course that promotes clean energy over filthy fossil fuels. With continued pressure on the three coal-friendly Land Board members, the next meeting on Thursday, March 18, could yield a different result. And Otter Creek, its ranches, farms, fish and wildlife could remain for now and future generations.
To help lay to rest this myopic endeavor you can attend and testify at the Land Board hearing this Thursday, March 18, beginning at 9 a.m. in room 137 of the Capitol building. You can also participate in one of two actions in Montana on Tuesday, March 16:
• In Missoulameet at the XXX's on the north end of Higgins Ave. at noon and march four blocks to the bridge to rally.
• In Billings rally at 1 p.m. at the Yellowstone Valley Courthouse Park
Health care reform is entering the final stretch in Congress. All sorts of stories will be written in the next few days, but the bottom line is that the Congress is about to pass the most significant economic justice legislation in 40 years and the most fundamental rewrite of our social contract since the New Deal and Social Security.
Like Social Security, Medicare, and, well, everything, this bill is a process, not an end-point. But the expansions of Medicaid, the creation of health insurance exchanges paired with meaningful regulation to make insurance function more like a regulated utility than the ferocious beast it has become, and the subsidies to make insurance affordable are all huge immediate gains for low- and middle-income Americans.
Combine all of those moves with the strong attempts to control costs -- bundling of prices, comparative effectiveness research, etc. -- and we've got something that just may keep people insured for the long term while also being the single biggest piece of deficit reduction legislation passed in the history of this country.
Damn. I know there are a lot of complaints out there, but we stand at a major turning point of American history. The future will build upon this point in a few ways:
Creation of a public option. Count me skeptical that we'll get it in this bill. But the public option is an easier thing to pass in the future than the framework in which it would live and, over the long-term, it is important, but nearly as important as the insurance market regulations and subsidies that will make insurance fair and affordable. We can get back to this and probably in better form than the compromised version we'd get today.
State experimentation. One of the amendments that both Ron Wyden and Bernie Sanders helped insert allows states to take the revenue streams under the bill and implement alternate models of reform, so, yes, California, New York, or even Montana could pass, for example, a single-payer plan and use the federal funds to make it happen.
Implementation of further cost control. This last piece will be the hardest, but it may prove the best. Focusing especially on bundling and comparative effectiveness research, which both create the opportunity to cut costs while increasing quality, we may be able to significantly restrain health care spending while improving health outcomes.
The wonderful people at Families USA, a progressive outfit that has been working on health reform for something like 25 years, put out a report on the effect of health reform on Montana. Over 100,000 Montanans will get insurance. Pre-existing condition discrimination will be a thing of the past.
As The Dude would say, "New s*** has come to light" in the Bowen Greenwood scandal. It turns out that a bill that would have prevented lawmakers from using your tax dollars to give out lucrative golden parachutes to political staff like Bowen Greenwood, Executive Director of the Republican Party of Montana, failed to pass in the 2009 Legislative Session on a party line vote. Guess which party voted against the ban on using taxpayer dollars for golden parachutes?
That's right folks. These Republicans have been caught trying to protect the flagrant money wasting they claim to oppose.
It's bad enough that Republicans blocked every attempt to end the practice of wasting taxpayer dollars on partisan bank rolls for their political hacks, but they've gone and selected the poster child and would-be recipient of this wasteful and illegal spending as their leader. Montana Republicans need to immediately let their constituents know the truth -- will they rethink this monumental hiring mistake or will they continue to block attempts to ban this kind of waste and corruption?
