| Recently, Montana 's rural schools applied to lease state-owned coal in Otter Creek Valley . The idea is to push Governor Schweitzer into getting a deal done that would allow a mining company to mine the coal, from which agreement, the state's school system would get a cut, not to mention the jobs and money that would necessarily flow into the community.
Schools are naturally concerned about funding. They were shorted in the 2007 state legislature, and the Good Guv has told them not to expect much of an increase in the next session, either.
Republican hacks jumped to attack. (Possible former?) House Speaker Scott Sales called Schweitzer's remarks hypocritical because he, you know, spent money on schools in 2007, and blamed the Guv's spending for the upcoming national recession. And Republican gubernatorial candidate, Roy Brown, said the Good Guv won't develop the coal tracts that would give schools a funding boost.
First, Pogie pretty much eviscerates Brown and Sales for me:
So, the principled conservative position on education is basically this: schools are rapacious, wasteful institutions that a new Republican governor would give more money to. Maybe Scott and Roy should get their anti-schools rhetoric together before they issue their press statements.
I'd also add that, if the schools are facing upcoming shortages, these jokers could have done something about it in the last legislative session. Only they didn't. In fact, Sales went even further and was against the education spending increases as they were proposed. If schools are facing budget crunches, Sales et al. are the biggest culprits. His brand of radical conservatism wants to destroy public schooling, not preserve it.
Second, schools tying themselves to coal is a bad idea. I've written before on the indications that coal is a dying industry. Siphoning off money from the sale of public coal would put money into school coffers, for the short term. But what about ten years from now? Five years, when coal prices skyrocket because of a carbon tax? Mining operations halt, and the state is left with land devastated from coal extraction, and no revenue can be made off it?
Such an agreement would benefit the big energy company that would mine the coal, probably at a state-subsidized price. And it's telling exactly which candidate is supporting the idea. (The Oil man?)
Third, mining coal from the Otter Creek tracts is simply not feasible. Due to the patchwork array of state lands there, negotiating a deal there is difficult, at best; and even if a deal were made, there's no rail line, and none likely to be built. In short, it ain't gonna happen.
And there's a better way to make money off of state lands. Ochenski:
Ironically, at the same time the rural educators were trumpeting Otter Creek as their fiscal salvation, Madison Valley Renewable Energy and its partners were moving ahead with leasing state lands near Norris for a wind energy project they say will eventually cover some 14,000 acres. Their test towers are going up now and if all goes as planned, 150 megawatts of clean wind energy will be available for sale with 3.1 percent of the revenue going to-you guessed it-Montana's schools. A similar wind development near Judith Gap produced $50,000 last year from land leases and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.
In that editorial, Ochenski says that the Montana Rural Education Association "got some bad advice" in staking its future to the Otter Creek coal tracts, which begs the question, from whom?
Let's see. Who could that be? Who benefits from distracting the public from who is actually responsible for shorting Montana 's schools, financially...presenting a false promise that Big Energy is Montana 's fiscal salvation...and making the Good Guv look responsible for it all?
Hmmm.... |
