Montana Main Street Blog

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.

Is Medical Liability Reform in the Senate Health Bill?

The latest from NAM:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment to the Senate health care bill, available here as a .pdf file, proposes actual statutory language for federal grants to states to establish demonstration projects on medical liability, but it's not what you think.

The provisions run from page 344 to 359: "SEC. 399V-4. STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT MEDICAL TORT LITIGATION." The previous versions of the bill had simple "Sense of the Senate" language that only suggested federal support for demonstration projects.

The new amendment is much more detailed and authorizes $50 million over five years, beginning in Fiscal Year 2011 (Page 358). Many provisions would favor participation in the demonstrations by the plaintiffs' bar, including the targeting of medical errors, which is the gist of AAJ's latest arguments against medical liability reform.

At Overlawyered.com, Walter Olson reports a Capitol Hill source’s insightful analysis of the language, which concludes: “Sen. Reid’s bill spends 50-million taxpayer dollars on a grant program run by trial lawyers for the benefit of trial lawyers. The money will be spent to establish “alternatives to litigation” that are even more lucrative for trial lawyers and costly for doctors than the current broken system.”

Re-Elect Numbers Bad for Incumbents

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has bad news for congressional incumbents. Just over a third of people (38%) would vote to re-elect their own representative, while almost half (49%) would rather put in someone new. That doesn't have anything to do with being a Republican or Democrat. It's simply voters' feelings regarding incumbents.

Our own P-base poll showed similar results for Montana legislative incumbents. In the poll of 600 Montana voters (4.1% margin of error) last month, 34% were willing to re-elect their current legislator, while 46% wanted to look at someone new. That is the lowest re-elect numbers we've seen in the history of the P-base poll.

Are voters mad as hell and ready to say they aren't going to take it anymore?  There is still almost eleven months to go before November of 2010, so much can change. Right now, though, it doesn't look good for people who are currently serving in public office.

New Poll Out on Montanans' Views of Economy, Business and Elections

 

Poll Shows Pulse of Montana Voters

Respondents Give Answers on Economic, Political and Business Issues

The Power Base (P-Base) is an annual scientific poll of 600 Montana voters on a variety of business and political issues with a margin of error of 4.1%. The poll is commissioned by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and other business groups to determine what regular Montanans think about important economic issues facing our state. Here are some of the results:

Economic Development

The unemployment levels are a top concern for Montanans. 40% listed it as the top problem facing our state, and the next highest problem, health care, was a third of that level at 15%. Montanans want to get back to work, and they are looking for businesses, not government, to provide the jobs.

As in prior surveys, the P-base shows Montanans want to see more business growth, especially in high wage businesses like the natural resource industries. For example, 78% of Montana voters want the state to encourage more timber harvesting, 76% want more oil & gas development, 71% want more coal development and 70% want more mining. Almost two-thirds of Montanans say the state Land Board should go forward with the Otter Creek coal tracts leasing as well, which is an issue the Board will take up at its December 21^st meeting.

“The message from the survey is clear: Montanans want to see the state move towards long-term, sustainable growth by increasing natural resource development, improving our business climate, and creating more good-paying jobs,” said Jon Bennion, Government Relations Director for the Montana Chamber.”

Montanans are still pessimistic about the national economy. 53% of voters believe the U.S.’s economy is on the wrong track as opposed to 24% who think we are on the right track. Voters believe the state’s economy is better off with 41% saying we’re on the right track versus 34% saying wrong track. 

Health Care

Respondents in the poll expressed significant satisfaction levels with their own health care insurance. Almost three-quarters of those polled (74%) said they were satisfied, while only 15% said they were dissatisfied. Half of Montanans want Washington, D.C. to scrap the current health care proposals and draft new legislation that would address rising costs.

Concerns of Voters

The P-base is also a good opportunity to see what financial concerns are on the minds of voters. For the fourth straight year, health care costs continue to be a top concern at 24% and high taxes came in second at 18%. Additionally, addressing the unemployment situation is the top issue (18%) voters want addressed in the coming elections, and health care (17%) is a not-so-distant second concern of voters at 15%. 59% said government in general is getting too involved and spending too much money, while only 31% said government wasn’t doing enough on issues like education, health care and the environment. 

Elections

When it comes to candidate endorsements, voters respect candidates who get stamps of approval from business groups, like chambers of commerce, agriculture groups and more.

When asked whether a Montana Chamber endorsement of a candidate would influence their voter, 51% of voters said it would have a positive effect compared with only 16% who said it would have a negative effect (35% net postitive). Even more popular are agriculture groups with 68% positive to only 7% negative (61% net positive). Trial lawyers (-40% net negative), environmental groups (-18% net negative) and labor unions (-9% net negative) scored low in the poll.

When asked about the upcoming elections for the Montana state legislature, voters are more likely (46%) to want to replace their local legislator rather than re-elect them (34%). Additionally, Republicans have a slight edge going into the legislative elections. 32% prefer GOP candidates for the legislature while 25% prefer Democrats.

“Candidates for the legislature need to focus on the economy, jobs, and growing the business sector,” explained Bennion, “Voters are worried about how much the government is trying to do, so candidates need to offer solutions that center around responsible development of our natural resources, controlling government deficits, and free enterprise.”

Climate Change Links

Although health care reform is still #1 in Washington, climate change legislation is lurking in the shadows ready to move at a moment's notice. Here are a few good links you should check out on this important topic:

Senator Baucus expresses his concerns about a proposed cap-and-trade bill

Dr. Steve Running of the new University of Montana's program on Climate Change made some interesting show on the "Voices of Montana" radio show last week. Those comments were picked up by the Sean Hannity Show (go 1:45 into the video to see the clip). BTW, you need to check out "Voices of Montana" every morning at 9:00 a.m. on Northern Broadcasting. Great show.

The effects of climate change legislation on Montana: Download ALEC MT INFO_Waxman Markey  

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.

Centrists Unaware of Card Check Negotiations

Even with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, Democrats appear unable to pass the "Employee Free Choice Act", or card check, as first proposed. For months now, they have been negotiating behind closed doors as they try and work something out that can actually pass.

Health care has consumed so much of the agenda, however, that few have noticed that big labor's top priority hasn't budged in the U.S. Senate. Based on the recent quotes of some moderate Democrats like Kay Hagan, some senators were hoping the issue was going away:

“From what I understood, the whole card-check issue was dead,” Hagan said.

Others appear to be uninterested or pleasantly oblivious to the negotiations, like Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid:

“Nothing final, to my knowledge, has been finalized, but I know members from both sides have been working on, I guess, a compromise,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). And Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who faces reelection in 2010 and said earlier this year she would oppose the bill, said she is unaware of any changes. “I haven’t heard or seen anything yet,” Lincoln said. Asked about any deal on the bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said,” I’m not aware of any.”

Montana's two senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, have also been rather non-committal on the issue. Two years ago, they were both co-sponsors of the bill. Now that it has a chance of actually passing, however, neither lawmaker has signed on.

I'm not sure what this "compromise" will look like. Many senators right now are pleading ignorance. My guess is that the bill is going to have to be significantly watered down if they are going to come close to getting the 60 votes needed to end debate. And if it isn't done this year, I have a hard time believing they will do it closer to a mid-year election.

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."