Montana Main Street Blog

Only Two Months Left to Save the Planet

Two months ago, I saw an interesting article about a speech given by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of South Korea. In this climate change speech given on August 11th, the UN leader made a bold prediction:

"We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet."

You got that, folks? Just four months to save the world from climate change consequences. But wait, that was two months ago. So I guess we only have two months left. I know he was referring to the climate change conference in Denmark this December, but was it also a not-so-subtle nudge to the U.S. to get some kind of cap-and-trade system in place in the next four months?

As health care continues to completely occupy the debate in Washington, DC, I somehow doubt that will be a reality.

Climate Change Bill Introduced Today in the Senate

Today the Waxman-Markey climate change bill will be introduced in the Senate. This cap-and-trade scheme may not overtake health care as the top issue, but it is something that should be strongly opposed because it will negatively impact Montana overall without having any real impact on the environment.

Jay Stevens over at Left in the Western Part of Pennsylvania had a post a week ago about our criticisms of the Waxman bill. Even though he spells my name wrong a number of times, I can forgive him for that. What's a little more inexcusable is Steven's numerous errors on the Montana Chamber - U.S. Chamber relationship, the Governor's position on cap-and-trade, and the greenies' claims of net job increases resulting from climate change legislation:

1. We often have to remind people that we are not a "chapter" of the U.S. Chamber, just like local chambers are not a chapter of us. We all have different organizations, missions, and in some cases membership. If this was the first time I had to explain it to Stevens, it wouldn't be a problem. However, he continues to misrepresent this relationship despite our numerous posts explaining this relationship, including one here. We often work together on a variety of business issues, but we are all run separately. In this case, we are working together with the national chamber, but we always reserve the right to take a different course based on the views of our own membership.  

2. Governor Schweitzer has either completely changed his views on cap-and-trade (see here), or he hasn't done a good job explaining his position. You can decide for yourself, but Stevens doesn't see a conflict in these positions.

3. Stevens wonders if the Montana Chamber supports a carbon tax? No.

4. Stevens continues to post nonsense on how cap-and-trade is a path to new jobs. This some how implies our economy will improve with such a bill. Will new jobs be created with the bill - yes. But what is the overall net impact on jobs for Montana and the country? How much more will Montanans pay for gas and electricity? How many jobs will go oversees where energy will be much cheaper (when was the last time a pair of Nikes said "Made-in-America?"). I have not seen one credible projection that says we will see more jobs with cap-and-trade. All of them project significant job losses and higher energy prices. Even the CBO and EPA have put hefty pricetags on the cap-and-trade system.

And for what? A few percentage points decrease over a 50-year period in worldwide carbon emissions? Would Stevens support a health care reform bill that cost hundreds of billions of dollars, left many unemployed, and had very little impact on the number of uninsured Americans? Maybe I shouldn't ask.

5. And finally, Stevens wonders if there may be similar dissension within our own ranks on this issue. Is that real? Absolutely. I don't know of specific businesses, but I'm sure there are a few members that would support cap-and-trade. If we couldn't take a position on an issue without 100% of our membership, we wouldn't be taking any positions.

Just setting the record straight. Stevens seems to be a nice guy, but just a bit hasty to post incorrect info.

Far Left Slams Baucus on Health Care

After months of negotiating with Democrats and Republicans, Montana's senior senator Max Baucus is prepared to move forward with a health care reform bill. Republicans have not signed off on it yet, and many are not likely to do so. Democrats from the left are not happy with the bill either, and Baucus may hear the most objections in the coming weeks from people in his own party.

Throughout his career, and especially as Chair of the Finance Committee, Baucus has routinely carved out a middle ground on important tax and spending issues. He doesn't always make Democrats happy, and Republicans aren't always fond of him either. That's probably a pretty good sign that he is charting a moderate course on this very important issue.

Now the far left is unleashing its anger on Baucus for not being a brainless partisan who rubber stamps their extreme agenda. Check out this article from San Francisco and this one from the Missoula Independent. Before this is all done, Baucus will take a lot of heat from the most liberal faction in his party. However, I don't expect that he'll buckle on this issue.

Harkin Tight-Lipped On EFCA "Compromise"

With most of the attention focused on health care, big issues like the poorly named "Employee Free Choice Act" have had to take a back seat. But that doesn't mean that card check proponents are not working behind the scenes on a bill that can get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster. Like with health care, supporters of card check know that they are going to have to try and pass it without bipartisan agreement.

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who will now assume the chairmanship of the Senate HELP Committee following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, recently made comments about the likelihood of passing card check before Congress recesses in December. He has been working on a "compromise" that can get the votes of moderate Democrats, such as Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and others. Even former strong supporters like Max Baucus and Jon Tester have refused to co-sponsor the bill this time, so the bill must be watered down before it has any chance of passing.

Harkin would not divulge the details of the proposed compromise: "I will not say because it was closely held and it was never leaked out and it still hasn't. As soon as I've got 60 votes, we'll put it back on the hot burner."

Cap-and-Trade Prospects Dwindle

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme that narrowly passed the House has an uphill battle in the Senate. I think the bill's supporters in Congress and the administration had hopes of cramming the bill through the process before a United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. That appears less likely at this point.

With the health care debate dragging on longer than the administration would like, and with the level of opposition seen on that issue, a sweeping climate change bill may not be the best course of action. The level of cap-and-trade support among Senate Democrats appears lower than health care reform, and many groups are coming out with ads calling for Senators to oppose the bill. Check out this ad urging Senator Jon Tester to oppose the bill.

A recent study from the American Council of Capitol Formation showed how much Montana stands to lose with the passage of Waxman-Markey. Although Montana could see more in the alternative energy arena, the overall net effect is still very negative - especially in the jobs market. By 2030, Montana could see 4,964 fewer jobs as a result of cap-and-trade under a low cost estimate, and 6,761 under a higher estimate. Montanans would also be paying more for their energy. The study estimates that by 2030, gasoline will costs will increase by 21% to 27%, electricity will increase by up to 61%, and natural gas will increase by up to 78%.

Although some environmental groups claim Montanans support cap-and-trade (without any evidence), we have actually asked Montanans about the issue. In the last P-base poll of 800 Montana voters (3% margin of error), more than half of Montanans said they don't want to pay a cent more in energy costs to stop global warming. If we include that question again in this year's poll, I wouldn't be surprised if the number is higher since the economy is much worse than a year ago.

These are big price tags for a bill that would only reduce worldwide carbon emissions by a few percentage points over time. Montana has a lot to lose if this bill is passed. We hope Senators Baucus and Tester vote with Montanans on this issue and oppose the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme.

Where's the Support for Cap-and-Trade?

Lee Newspapers ran an interesting story yesterday on cap-and-trade. The IR's online headline read: "Cap-and-Trade Backers Say Montanans Support Bill." This automatically caught my attention, so I scanned the article for any proof. The problem is there is no proof.

But guess what? The Montana Chamber has proof through scientific polling of Montana voters that Montanans do not support cap-and-trade schemes. In our November 2008 poll, more than half of Montanans said they would not pay a penny more in their electric or gasoline bill on meaures aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. Too bad Lee Newspapers would not print that poll, but they will print baseless claims by environmental groups and make it a headline.

Also in this article are dubious claims from greenies that cap-and-trade will actually create jobs. Every projection I've seen for Montana shows a net job loss for the state and increased energy costs for the consumer. In addition, the groups say this scheme is in-line with what Governor Schweitzer believes, which is also not true. From what I understand, the Governor is in favor of a carbon tax, not cap-and-trade.

It's a shame these facts don't make it into news stories.

Thanks to Schweitzer, Rehberg, Tester and Baucus

It's too early to declare victory, but it looks like the GM/Stillwater issue might be heading in the right directionthanks to our Montana elected officials. When GM announced it was breaking its contract with Stillwater Mining (employs 1,300 people with good-paying jobs) and keeping contracts with foreign suppliers after it received billions in taxpayer bailout dollars, our Governor, Congressman and two Senators applied some nice PR pressure to the government-owned car company.

At this point, GM has agreed to start talks again. Like I said - still a long ways out from making this a good situation, but at least things seem to be going in the right direction. Let's keep that pressure on them so people don't think this issue is resolved!

Minimum Wage Going Up This Month, What About January?

Effective Friday, July 24, the minimum wage will be raised, according to the final phase-in of a federal bill passed in 2007.  The current federal minimum wage rate of $6.55 per hour will increase to $7.25 per hour.  However, Montana’s minimum wage is already $6.90 per hour because of voter-passed Initiative 151, which raises the minimum wage according the Consumer Price Index - Urban (CPI-U).  But, when all is said and done, the new minimum wage will be $7.25 per federal law. This is the fourth minimum wage increase (from $5.15 per hour) in just over two years for Montana businesses.

Because the minimum wage in Montana is tied to the CPI-U, the wage could go up every year in January according to the state law. This year, however, it's possible to see the CPI-U go down. Based on the current 12 month change, the CPI-U is down 1.7%. Therefore, if the rates remain similar over the next two months until the August data comes out there may be no increase in the minimum wage. Unfortunately for small businesses, the law does not allow the minimum wage to be reduced if there is a decrease in the CPI-U.

The CPI-U is an interesting index to tie our minimum wage to if you look at how it's calculated. It's put together by taking the price increases of different goods in various locations around the country. The only problem is that it doesn't use any Montana data to calculate it. In fact, it doesn't use any from Wyoming, South Dakota and North Dakota either. Weird way to change the state's minimum wage if you ask me.  

Sign This Petition to Save Montana Mining Jobs

As many of you know, and as we've reported a few times already, GM is seeking to end its contract with Stillwater Mining Company for rhodium and palladium while maintaining its contracts with foreign suppliers in Russia and South Africa. This is after GM received billions in American tax dollars to keep it afloat. Hundreds of good-paying jobs in south-central Montana are at stake here. Representative Denny Rehberg and Governor Brian Schweitzer have already contacted the Obama administration on this issue, but we need Baucus and Tester to do the same.

Please sign this online petition and urge your friends, co-workers and fellow bloggers to do so as well. We need to keep the heat on GM, our federal delegation and the Obama administration. What good is the American Recovery Act and government bailouts if American jobs are lost in this way?

Rehberg Goes to Bat for Stillwater Mining Jobs

I just learned today that Representative Denny Rehberg has also sent a letter to the Obama administration asking it to review GM's decision to stop its contract with Montana's Stillwater Mining Co.

In the letter, Rehberg points out that Stillwater's tax dollars and the taxes paid by Stillwater's employees went to bail out GM. The decision to not go forward with the contract, while honoring contracts with mining companies in Russia and South Africa is ridiculous.

A big thanks to Rehberg for his prompt work on this important issue. Now, if we could just get Tester and Baucus to act as well...