Montana Main Street Blog

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.

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.

4-1 Vote in Favor of Otter Creek

After a few hours of public testimony regarding the Otter Creek coal tracts in eastern Montana, the Land Board decided to go ahead with putting the tracts up for bid. The vote was 4-1 in favor, with Denise Juneau being the lone dissenter.

A couple of thing struck me as odd - the first one being that the state's Superintendent of Public Instruction (the head of the K-12 system in Montana) voted down an opportunity to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in new money for our schools. I've never hear a superintendent say they have enough money, but maybe she's going to make that case in the 2011 Legislature. There won't be a big surplus to start with, so schools are going to have to deal with less coming their way unless they think that Montanans should pay higher taxes.

The other part of the vote that was interesting was the minimum bid amount required. It's set at 25 cents a ton, which is two and a half times more than the market price set by the Arch Coal and Great Northern Properties agreement. Some have speculated this was the Land Board's way of killing the project without a "no" vote. That may be a bit cynical. There are 45 days for a company to bid, so we'll see if there are any takers. If there aren't the Land Board should come back with a more reasonable price.

Either way, kudos to the Governor, State Auditor, Secretary of State and Attorney General for agreeing with the vast majority of Montanans by at least voting in favor of putting the tracts up for bid.

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.”

How the State Government Benefits from the Satterlee decision

State fiscal analysts and lawmakers have been waiting for the decision in Satterlee to come out because the state government's general fund would be on the hook for some of the tab. Since the decision would have required payouts to people covered under the Old Fund, the state would have had to pay up to $130 million to pay off the liability. That can erase a budget surplus in Montana pretty quick.

I bet most state lawmakers are happy they don't have to deal with that price tag. Small businesses are celebrating as well.

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  

CO Reduces Minimum Wage, Montana's Stays the Same

Like Montana, Colorado ties it's minimum wage to the CPI-U, a price index of consumer products calculated by the federal government. The CPI-U uses data from all over the country, but it doesn't use any data from Montana, Wyoming, and the two Dakotas. But that's another story.

Colorado's state minimum wage law actually provides for a decrease (not to go below the federal minimum wage) in it's minimum wage if there is a decrease in the CPI-U. This year, the index fell 0.6 percent due to a drop in energy prices. Therefore, the state minimum wage will drop a monsterous 3 cents, fron $7.28 to $7.25.

Montana's state minimum wage will not decrease, despite the drop in the CPI-U. Not only does our law not allow for a decrease in the wage, but it also sets it at the higher rate of the two wages - federal and state. Since Montana currently has its wage at $7.25, which is the federal rate, it wouldn't go lower even with a state provision for a decrease tied to the CPI-U.

So what do you think - should Montana's law allow for a decrease or not?

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.