Montana Main Street Blog

Targeted Legislative Seats for 2010

You may have noticed our months of non-blogging. Although there was no legislative session in 2010, we have kept very busy this past winter. Blogging fell to the bottom of the priority list.

We're back now, and we've updated our "Targeted Legislative Seats" page now that filing season has concluded. If a district made it on the list, it does not mean the Montana Chamber is targeting the race. We are simply making educated guesses about the legislative seats that both parties are likely to target. Check out the list here.

Take a moment to look at the list and tell us how we are wrong (or correct). Did we leave one off the list that should be there? Is the a race on the list that will not be competitive? Did we provide any wrong information that needs to be corrected? We would love to hear your thoughts on some of these races, including any inside scoop you may have on any of the races.

SEIU Now A Small Business Advocate

Jay Stevens over at Left in the Western Part of Pennsylvania continues his knee-jerk dislike for all things Chamber by promoting a diary entry from John Firehammer of "Montana Change that Works", a political advocacy arm of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Firehammer doesn't always identify which Chamber he's talking about, but in this case it doesn't matter because every Chamber I've run into is opposed to the issue he discusses.

I read with some amusement as Firehammer claims to be representing Main Street businesses who want to see the federal government spend billions of new taxpayer dollars on a new federal government bureaucracy as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). Apparently small businesses are just clamoring for this federal financial savior to ward off the evil bankers and Wall Street firms, and chambers of commerce around the state are just not listening to Main Street.

So which specific small businesses are Firehammer and SEIU claiming to represent? Which Montana businesses did Firehammer or Stevens personally talk to that are demanding this new government agency? When was the last time either of them actually talked to a real Montana small business owner who is actually employing people (yes, Jay, a MONTANA small business owner)? How do they know that a majority of small businesses even want this bill passed? Don't forget, these are the same people that oppose small businesses that are organized as a corporation from having free speech rights when it comes to campaign contributions as laid out in recent the Citizens United case.  

As a staff member at the Chamber of Commerce, I have the privilege of hearing from Montana small businesses on a daily basis. Our membership has a higher ratio of small businesses than the statewide average. Our board is made up of all kinds of businesses, both large and small. I don't think I've received a single call, email or message from any Montana business asking for the Consumer Financial Protection Act to pass. Even if I did get one, two or three, should we ignore the hundreds of other members who are opposed to the bill, including small business that are mad about how much the government is spending, or worried this may further dry up credit, or concerned this will end up putting more regulation on their backs?

Coincidently, when I went to find out what "Montana Change That Works" actually was, it brought me to the SEIU homepage where I also saw a nice ad to get the "SEIU for You" Credit Card through Visa. But wait, aren't those credit card companies and Wall Street firms bad news? I suppose not if you get kickbacks from them through credit cards you promote to your membership. Classy.

Government "Solutions"

When I think about Washington DC's attempts at health care reform, climate change proposals, stimulus bills, and the new budget unveiled by the Obama administration, I think this sums it up pretty well. To check out more of these "demotivators", go to www.despair.com.

Federal Attempts to "Create Jobs"

Over the next ten months Congress and the President will be debating budgets, bills, tax revisions and more to supposedly "create jobs." Thomas Oliver of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a great article about the difficulties in this line of thinking. The federal government can make all the new tax credits it wants, but that is not going to create jobs.

I don't know who originally coined the axiom, "First, do no harm," but that is what the government needs to do in order to get us even close to thinking about an economic recovery. As Congress debates and the President presses for sweeping changes in health care, climate change (cap & trade), card check, different tax rates for investors, different rates for income tax payers, death tax revisions, huge financial and banking reforms, and record deficit spending, my question is this - who would want the risk of hiring new people in a time of record uncertainty? And not just economic uncertainty, but uncertainty largely created by government officials and regulators.

It's not an easy time to be a business owner right now, especially a small business owner. I think most are thinking they are safer just treading water than trying to expand, and it's due in large part to many things being debated in Congress right now. If we want to get our people back to work, we must first understand what's been keeping businesses from hiring new people. Tax credits aren't going to get people back to work in any large numbers.

Bozeman Tennis Court Debacle

The city of Bozeman's decision to use stimulus funds to build tennis courts grabbed the attention of many conservative news outlets, including Fox News and the Drudge Report.

Thinking he may have an opportunity to get on the "fiscal conservative" side of this issue, Governor Schweitzer showed up to Bozeman City Council to express his displeasure with this poor use of funds. What he got was a mayor ready to stand up to him. Here is the exchange as reported by the Flathead Beacon:

Schweitzer: I didn’t come here to blame the city council. You absolutely have the right to do this. You have the green light through the Department of Commerce because they can’t turn anybody down. That was the legislation. It was not the intent of the dollars that came to Montana

Krauss: So if you’re perceived as being a person who has attacked the city of Bozeman. And maybe because you’ve been used by the media or you’ve used the media to do just that.

Schweitzer: Mayor, what were my words? Do you recall?

Krauss: It was a quote about how you did not approve of this. Didn’t approve of this. That this wasn’t appropriate and you didn’t approve of this.

Schweitzer: That’s correct and that’s what I’m saying today.

Krauss: Right. But we have a letter from your administration approving it.

Schweitzer: Sure.

Krauss: So you approved it before you disapproved it.

The report from the Chronicle also brought up how the council questioned the Governor's use of his airplane to fly down to the council meeting, and whether that was a good use of taxpayer dollars. Interesting stuff.

Schweitzer Will Headline National Trial Lawyers Convention...Again

February is a great time to go to Hawaii, I guess. I love the theme of the trial lawyer convention: "Networking in Paradise."

Blaming an Airport For Your Divorce

From the NAM "Focus" Newsletter - Legally Insane Column:

"Stanley G. Hilton blames 37 organizations for the collapse of his marriage and is seeking $15 million from each of them ($555 million total). He alleges the defendants - the city and county of San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport and every airline based there, airline engine manufacturers and the real estate agencies involved in the sale of his house - failed to warn him that the house he purchased was very close to the airport. As a result, he argues, he suffered from noise and air pollution that caused physical and emotional injuries."

I hope the defendants use Rule 11 and get this lawsuit dismissed with sanctions against the plaintiff. Ridiculous.

My Prediction in the State Senate Race for District 25

Rep. Kendall Van Dyk has just announced his intention to challenge incumbent Senator Roy Brown in district 25. This was known all the way back to the last session, but Van Dyk formally announced yesterday.

I'm not going to make a prediction on the outcome, but I will say that this will be the most expensive state senate race ever. Both Van Dyk and Brown have already done fundraisers around the state, and Van Dyk has even done one in Washington, DC. Both are good campaigners as well. The outcome will depend on hard work and the electorate's mood on state and national issues like health care, cap & trade, the federal deficit, the state budget, and more.

This will be an interesting race to watch. Who do you think will win the race between "Big Oil Roy" and "Tax Hike Van Dyk"?

Schweitzer for Interior Secretary?

With the news that Governor Ritter of Colorado will not seek re-election, Democrats in CO are scrambling to find a candidate to keep the seat. The Obama adminstration is interested in having a Democrat as governor there to help the President's re-election chances in that state and in the West overall. The best candidate would be Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is a former senator from CO and who has never lost a statewide election there.

Here's where the speculation starts - reports say Salazar has interest in a gubernatorial run and may have even secured the blessing of Obama. Governor Schweitzer is already being mentioned as a possible replacement. Could the Governor be heading to DC in the next few months?

Would Schweitzer even have interest in such as job, you ask? Absolutely. Since he is term-limited from running for Governor again, many have speculated about his next gig. To the press he always said he was not interested in a cabinet position. Behind closed doors, however, he was definitely looking for an appointment even back in November of 2008.

And who wouldn't want to leave that job right now? Revenue projections are falling every month and it is possible that Montana will join the other 48 states that have deficits by the end of this biennium. If he secured the appointment soon enough, he could leave when there was still a few million dollars in the bank. Not a bad time to move on to the next thing a little early.

Now here's another layer of speculation that already makes two assumptions. If Salazar runs for governor of Colorado AND Schweitzer is appointed in his place, will Lt. Governor John Bohlinger be a Democrat or Republican? He has always declared himself a Republican, and the MT Democrats used that effectively to have a bi-partisan ticket, but the MT GOP always called him a traitor. Republicans claim he had a (D) by his name when his name appeared on the ballot, so that made him a Democrat. If Bohlinger becomes Governor, both camps may reverse their positions. Oh the irony.

It's fun to hear the gossip and go through the "what ifs", but just keep in mind that it's still just speculation.

UPDATE: The Fix is reporting that Salazar will not run and he will back Denver Mayor Hickenlooper instead. Speculation over.

Wheat is Governor's Choice for High Court

It's no shocker that Governor Schweitzer picked former senator Mike Wheat to replace Justice John Warner on the Montana Supreme Court. He has a lot of legal experience, he has already run once for statewide office, he is a plaintiff's attorney that will have the backing of the Montana Trial Lawyer's Association, and he has money to self-fund his campaign. Without a doubt, being a former Democratic lawmaker helped him too.

Question: Will this appointment add fuel to the fire the Montana Republican Party started over the Governor and other Democratic executives picking Democratic legislators to fill positions? In this case Wheat is a former lawmaker, but the cronyism accusations may still fly. According to the dictionary, cronyism is "partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications."

In this case, I don't think anyone can make a case that Wheat is unqualified - in fact, I believe all three selected by the judicial nomination committee had ample backgrounds.

Any thoughts on this? Discuss....