The governor's office has announced a coordinated response. His memo is reprinted in full here:
January 6, 2009
TO: Department Directors
FROM: Governor
RE: Rapid Response Coordination
Montana's economy has shown great resilience, but the impacts of the national downturn are now being felt in our Montana communities. In the last several weeks, hundreds of Montanans received lay-off notices from their jobs. Most projections indicate that this trend will continue through the first half of 2009 and very possibly longer with unemployment levels rising to near double digit levels nationally.
At a minimum, the U.S. Department of Labor funds States to provide Rapid Response services that connect laid off workers to unemployment insurance, career counseling, and job search assistance.
I know that we can do better for Montana workers.
Montana's Rapid Response activities must be elevated to the level of a critical service. Our Rapid Response program must work closely with business and industry and labor organizations to coordinate the design of a range of proactive strategies- including economic development - for addressing dislocation.
Rapid Response activities that should be completed within the month:
Commitment from DLI, DPHHS, OPI, OCHE, DOA and Commerce to ongoing participation in the design and implementation of the State's Rapid Response program to ensure timeliness, quality and consistency in state services.
The compilation and dissemination to all state agencies of a comprehensive list of existing services available to assist dislocated workers and their families.
Creation/maintenance of a master database listing all state jobs available to dislocated workers.
At my request, the Department of Labor and Industry will be the lead agency in collecting this information and making it available on-line as well through its One Stop Centers statewide.
I know that you and your agency will continue to work with my office and the Department of Labor and Industry to create a well-defined role for the State that will ensure timely, consistent and effective services are provided to every Montanan who needs our help. I look forward to a report on your progress.
British lawyer Phillipe Sands was on Fresh Air yesterday, claiming that there's likely to be some sort of investigation into "high-ranking government officials and top military figures" over the use of torture during the Bush years. Essentially the pressure to investigate isn't likely to stem from any sense of righteousness on behalf of the Obama administration, but from international pressure. Torture is one of the few crimes -- alongside genocide and war crimes -- that can be prosecuted within any country that's a party to the international agreements to ban torture. In short, if the U.S. government doesn't do something to look into its use of torture, another government probably will. Like, say, Britain. Needless to say, a major international incident between the U.S. and the EU is something the Obama administration wants to avoid, given its public commitment to end our nation's diplomatic isolation in the world community.
Anyhow, it's a great interview and well worth a listen. But here's the part I'd like to quote, about administration lawyer, John Yoo:
I think the author, the principle author, of the infamous torture memo -- that's to say, John Yoo -- must be at serious risk of possible investigation. I mean, he is, in a sense, impressively unapologetic...he sticks by what he has done, I fundamentally disagree with what he has done. But he has said he believes he has done the right thing.
His legal opinions are truly appalling. There's no one I know -- and respect -- who supports them. It appears he was essentially used to rubberstamp a predetermined policy. And that, I think, takes him across a line. It's not just bad lawyering, it's not just unprofessional legal advice, it takes you into the realm of complicity.
And I think if evidence emerges from further investigation that abusive techniques of interregation had already been embarked upon without appropriate legal authorization, and they needed to find someone to sign off on it, and he was the person to sign off on it, then I think it becomes particularly certain.
I have to admit, I've long found John Yoo one of the morecontemptablemembers of the Bush administration, precisely because of his willingness to distort U.S. law and the Constitution into politically convenient opinions. And, yes, administration lawyers have a history of doing so -- Renquist and Scalia greased their path to the SCOTUS by being the legal bag carriers for Nixon. But Yoo subverted the law for torture.
For a while, Yoo furiously penned op-eds defending the administration's incredibly weak legal basis for breaking the law, but recently broke tradition-- after the election of a Democrat to the nation's highest office, coincidentally -- by opining (along with "loyal Bushie" sidekick, John Bolton) that the president should give up power to the Senate on trade matters.
That's right: Yoo's arguing for something less than absolute powers for the executive branch, and by doing so, enters Bill Kristol territory, crassly and ineptly carrying water for the GOP. If there ever was any doubt that Yoo isn't simply a misguided ideologue, it's this op-ed. I'm not sure what he's after -- a consulting gig? an eventual appointment to a federal court by some future, grateful conservative president? a shot at political office? -- but it's weak and infuriating. Let's hope investigations do occur, and Yoo gets swept up with them...
Reading this story is pretty unreal after the 2007 session:
The House Republican floor leader says he thinks there are many areas of agreement between the GOP and the Democratic leadership.
Without the actual seven point plan from the GOP (hopefully that ends up on RotundaReport.com soon -- it could probably bump the heartwarming story of Bruce Tutvedt and Roy Brown having served on the ASMSU Senate togeter in college), it is hard to judge the substance. But the tone is a nice change.
The 2009 legislative session kicked off this week, and, so far, it's already less contentious than the 2007 session -- that session kicked off under the cloud of a Republican declaration of "war" and the opening day speeches on cooperation was marred by an angry tirade by the blog-shy Senate minority leader, Cory Stapleton. Not to say 2009 won't be filled with chills and thrills. Sure, Koopman, Sinrud, and Stapleton are absent this year, but there're still the Wendy Warburtons and Krayton Kerns. And then there's this:
At the opening of the 2009 Montana Legislature on Monday, Republican leaders made it clear they won't be shy about pushing their agenda, saying their message of lower taxes and less government still resonates with the public.
"This is still a Republican state," Senate President Bob Story, R-Park City, told fellow Republican senators at a party meeting hours before the Legislature convened at the Capitol.... "We have to carry (our) message and let people know why we're here."
Pretty strong words from a man whose party's highest state officeholder is a public service commissioner, and whose party controls only one body of the legislature. Of course, Story's remarks are political (I hope they're political, because the alternative is that our state Senate president is deranged), likely an effort to justify his party's attempt to bluster its free-market ideology and social values into the mix. Even so, Story's rhetoric seems half-hearted to me. The big issue is the budget, and everybody seems to agree it needs to be trimmed. The arguments will be over how much to cut, where, and what kind of tax cuts to give who.
And did you catch Mike Cooney's bill, which would make any violation of the rules governing the legislature a misdemeanor? (The Gazette: "A misdemeanor, by Montana law, is punishable by a maximum $500 fine and up to six months in the county jail.") Er, why?
Cooney said his bill isn't directed at any party or particular leader. But he said he's seen occasions when a House speaker might keep a bill to himself for a while, using it as a way to get a favor out of the opposing party.
Hm. I wonder if he's referring to a certain recent House Speaker that was rumored to stuff opposition party bills into a drawer of his desk, never to be seen again? Probably -- and Cooney's probably unleashing a little half-hearted rhetorical salvo of his own at the GOP, a little reminder to Story et al. that the Republicans probably don't want to get into any fights over manners. (After all, Emily Post would frown on cuss-laden appearences in YouTube videos, displaying the manners of a 7th-grader out behind the gym.)
On a more constructive note, jhwygirl wrote a post outlining some Democratic legislators' agendas this week, along with some helpful links to online resources for the session. The legislature's website is beefed up some, and this year includes live streaming of legislative business, a feature that'll make all you legislature junkies out there drool in anticipation. (You know who you are.)
Again, and as always, you're heartily encouraged to post your thoughts about the legislature or a bill or favorite legislator. What's the funniest bill in the works? What bills do you like? What bills are bad ideas? Who's the best/worst GOPer? The best/worst Dem? And, of course, links to fun moments on the floor or in committee are welcomed...
I'm paying a lot of attention to health care reform these days and giving it some serious thought. I really do appreciate that Mike Dennison covers health care so often, but this really feels like Part 45 of a 12,000 Part Series of "Breaking News in Montana Related to Someone Calling for 'Single Payer.'"
In almost none of these cases do I see a ton of real inquiry into what a single payer plan actually looks like. Medicare for All? Cool. Let's figure out what Medicare looks like when it covers pediatrics and women of child-bearing age. Let's figure out what it looks like when its core population is young people who do stupid things like take drugs and ski. Let's figure out its financing mechanisms. Let's figure out what the cost controls look like. Let's figure out the transition mechanisms.
Single payer, as I've written before, isn't a system. It's a genus of systems, maybe a class, order, or phylum. Any system within that broad category is going to have a whole ton of particular features. It is generally those features that will provide for the eventual success or failure of the system.
I deeply appreciate that people hate insurance companies. I'm not super gung-ho myself. But a bumper sticker solution isn't going to work to solve our health care woes. We need a truly deeper understanding. And if single payer advocates aren't being pressed with those questions and aren't coming up with solutions, they're being treated with kid gloves. Paternalism isn't much good for any of us.
So how do we finance it? How do we transition it? Who administers it? And how do we control costs under it?
Update -- Matthew Koehler smartly points out in comments that Americans' eating habits are far more burdensome for the health care system than skiing or pot smoking. True, true. I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise (although I understand that could have been inferred).
(Get yer popcorn, folks, the fun's beginning! - promoted by Jay Stevens)
I've talked to a lot of folks lately that are a little depressed that this legislative session won't have John Sinrud, Roger Koopman or some of the other crazies. I try to reassure them that we still have Ed Butcher, Dan McGee, Krayton Kerns and Joe Balyeat...we'll still have entertainment.
But there may be someone new to add to this list. Havre's freshman representative, Wendy Warburton.
I was in Havre recently and in conversations with friends up there, it's my understanding that the Hi-Line is facing the same economic crisis that the rest of the country is facing. Loss of jobs. Boarded up businesses. Homes that can't be sold and mortgages worth more than the value of the house. Etc. Etc.
So one would think that Ms. Warburton would be coming to her first legislative session with a slew of fresh ideas to help the pocketbooks of the blue collar folks in her district, right? After reading this post the other day, I wanted to take a look at the bill drafts that she has for her inaugural session:
LC 1977: A bill to authorize covenant marriage. Which, according to Wiki, is where "the marrying couple agree to obtain pre-marital counseling and accept more limited grounds for divorce." As mentioned in the post I linked to earlier, this would make it harder for someone in an abusive or dangerous relationship, get a divorce.
LC 1842: A bill to establish a health care freedom of conscience act. This legislation would allow insurance companies to not provide services if it violates their "conscience." (READ: Abortion.) (Oh, and this surprised me because I don't know of any insurance companies that have a conscience.)
LC 1843: A bill to establish a pharmacist freedom of conscience act. Which would, of course, allow pharmacist's from providing medicine to patients if they felt it violated their "conscience."
And LC 1978 which would "Clarify medicaid eligibility and procedures." Like the others, this legislation hasn't been written (or posted) yet, so your guess is good as mine on what type of clarification Ms. Warburton would like done...but if I had to guess...
Looking at the numbers, it seems as if Warburton's seat actually leans towards the Dems. I've been told that Warburton campaigned really hard...but that was before she had a record. If this is the best she can come up with during these economic times, I'd bet there are folks up in Havre that would love to see her be a one-term state rep.
After more than 200 years, (and two years of internal meetings, creation of a taskforce, and amendments and compromises) Carroll College in Helena appears to have taken a pretty tiny step forward toward recognizing the existence of the first amendment.
The "change" was reported in the Carroll College student newspaper "The Prospector" [Volume 92 Edition 3, December 11, 2008](not available online), Carroll now has a "Policy for External Speaker Events When the Public is Invited" (emphasis mine, also below):
"Members of the college community must be free to engage the full range of views on a variety of subjects. Even unwelcome or controversial views need to be heard, discussed and analyzed," the documents introduction reads.
"In extending such invitations, however, members of the college community have an obligation to respect the special aims and objectives of Carroll College as described in the statement of mission."
As a Catholic college, Carroll is obligated to treat judgments concerning ultimate reality and decisions concerning ultimate value at both an academic and a pastoral level. This obligation involves the College's relationship to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, defined as "the perennial, authentic, and infallible teaching office committed to the Apostles by Christ and now possessed and exercised by their legitimate successors, the college of bishops in union with the pope."
Okay, so I was away last week. To Baja to kayak on the Sea of Cortez, a trip taken to celebrate my 10th anniversary, and man! An amazing trip. It was also my first trip to Mexico, and I have to say, I enjoyed getting away from everything.
I'm not fully caught up yet, but I see the headlines blazing with Israel's invasion of Gaza - and the Patriots missed the playoffs, but the Eagles already won a playoff game? Anyway, the first thing that made me stutter-step in political news was the news that Bill Richardson withdrew as Obama's nominee for Commerce because of an investigation into the New Mexican's political dealings during his tenure as governor.
While Steve Benen wonders how Richardson slipped through the Obama transition team's vetting process, I'm left scratching my head that Richardson thought he had a shot at the presidency while this was ongoing. His chutzpah in this thing reminds me of Edwards' - running an outside chance at the Democratic nomination with a gigantic scandal hanging over his head.
Now it still may turn out that there's nothing here - but, besides Edwards', has anyone's political stock fallen as far as Richardson? He started out the campaign season as everyone's dark horse pick, then blundered his way through the early primaries, and frankly embarassed himself during the debates. He subsequently alienated himself from his closest allies - the Clintons - with an endorsement of Obama, and alienated himself from the Obama administration with this recent brouhaha. With both New Mexico Senate seats now occupied by Demcrats, there doesn't look like there's much upwards room left for the governor for the forseeable future.
So I just joined twitter. I'm not sure that I know whether I'll really be using it -- or whether it'll ever be political musings. But if you want to "follow" me on twitter, I'm @montuckyliberal.
