Montana Main Street Blog

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.”

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.

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.

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!

Schweitzer Switch on Cap and Trade

As first reported by Paul Chesser and noted by the Flathead Beacon, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer appears to have had a change of heart on the issue of cap and trade. Up until last year, the second-term Governor has seemingly done everything possible to promote cap and trade, and push for its passage. So what's up with that?

We have long opposed such a system because it would cost Montana a lot of good paying jobs, cost Montana consumers more in energy prices, and have little to no effect on the issue of climate change. In March of last year, the Montana Chamber organized a "Climate Change Dialogue," which focused solely on the economics of cap and trade (not whether humans were causing global warming) and there were many lawmakers, business people and industry folks in attendance.

The Governor was not present at the event, but one of his top advisors was there. He commented to the press about how the whole event was like the tobacco companies trying to convince people that smoking wasn't bad for them. In this post, I responded to that allegation by noting that the Governor's position (at the time) was more like that of the tobacco example because proponents of cap and trade were ignoring the economic realities of such a system and the science that says it will have little to no effect.

Now don't get me wrong - if the Governor has switched is position and is now opposing cap and trade, that's a good thing. In fact, we may be able to work together on the issue. It just begs the question of why he was such a strong supporter in the past (enough to liken those who take his current position to the tobacco industry) and why the change?

Tester Goes to Bat for Stillwater Mining

Senator Jon Tester has spoken out against GM's move to kill American mining jobs and created a webpage for Americans to send comments to GM. His actions follow Representative Rehberg and Governor Schweitzer's condemnation of GM's attempt to withdraw from a palladium and rhodium contract after receiving vast amounts in taxpayer bailout money. Good-paying Montana jobs are at stake, so please take a moment to send your opinion.