Montana Main Street Blog

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."

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....

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.”

Judicial Nomination Committee Selects Three Candidates

Just got word that the Montana Judicial Nomination Committee released three names of candidates to replace retiring Justice John Warner. Governor Schweitzer can either pick from the list or reject all three. At least eleven lawyers submitted their names for consideration. Here are the three finalists:

1. Carlo Canty - a long-time assistant attorney general under Mike McGrath

2. John Warren - a Dillon lawyer in private practice with 47 years of experience

3. Mike Wheat - a plaintiff's attorney from Bozeman who has also served as a Democratic state senator and ran for attorney general in 2008.

Any guesses on who Governor Schweitzer will pick? The answer to that question rests on who can win a statewide election just 10 months after being appointed. That may require someone who has a little money they can put into a campaign, someone who would have the backing of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association (which is usually the top PAC spender in judicial races, and someone who has run a campaign before. Wheat meets all of those criteria.

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.

Governor Finally Sees Work Comp as an Issue

Last week, the Governor's office asked the Montana State Fund to show more information on why work comp rates have doubled since 2000. His tone in the article is rather harsh to the State Fund without looking at the real reasons of increasing costs, including his own opposition to good work comp reform bills and his office's silence on bills that would have raised costs.

In the 2009 Legislative Session, small businesses asked for clarity in the work comp laws regarding issues of course and scope. The bill, SB 371, would have dealt with an area of work comp that has allowed non-work related injuries into the system, thereby driving up costs for Montana businesses. The bill received big bi-partisan support from both houses, but the Governor vetoed the bill. I hope this new concern about work comp rates gets him to reconsider his position on course and scope for the next session. We'll definitely be bringing that one back.  

In other work comp areas, the Governor's office stood silent on legislation that would have raised the cost of work comp rates. The Governor's office is not one to shy away from lobbying on bills in committee, so the lack of any testimony from any executive departments on these bills was interesting. For example, SB 285 would have encouraged more attorney involvement in work comp cases by allowing attorney fee awards in cases where denial of benefits was perfectly reasonable. This would have certainly added cost to work comp costs, but no one from his office opposed the bill.

To be fair, the Governor did start a good council a few years ago to study the cost-drivers in work comp and to build consensus for good reforms. He should probably read some of their findings about medical costs, injury rates and return-to-work problems to find out more about why our rates are the 2nd highest in the country. But when good reforms come his way, he should also really jump on board. Glad to hear he is (hopefully) thinking about reversing his positions on some of these issues.

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.