UM Economics Expert: A Political Dead End?

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 13:58:14 PM MST

A Political Dead End?
By Dr. Thomas Michael Power

I wonder sometimes what the rest of the world thinks about the volatility of American politics. Four years, as well as two years ago, President Bush and his Republican allies had incredibly low approval ratings and Americans sent more Democrats to Congress, statehouses, and legislatures, and, ultimately, a Democrat to the White House. Republicans were repudiated. Commentators wondered if the Republican Party had a future as it began fighting within itself over the source of voter disaffection.

Just two years later voters have returned a majority of Republicans to the House of Representatives as well as to many state legislatures and statehouses. It certainly might cross some people's minds that we just cannot make up our minds or that we are a bit crazy, politically speaking.

But interestingly, polls of those independents who voted Republican in last week's election indicate that support for Republicans and their core policies remains low. Voters were voicing dissatisfaction with the continuing pain and destruction associated with the Great Recession and the failure of those in power to effectively do something about it. So incumbents were turned out of office and Democrats, being in the majority, made up many of those incumbents.

This result is not likely to be very productive for the American people and economy nor bring any "change" to Washington DC. The surging Republicans did not receive a mandate to pursue their more extreme agenda items such as dismantling Social Security and Medicare, weakening environmental regulation, turning Wall Street loose again to inflate another destructive bubble, or getting the government more involved in trying to dictate the most intimate aspects of our personal lives.

Nor can the Republicans deliver on their proposals to cut the federal deficit. They want to keep all of the Bush tax cuts in place and continue to aggressively prosecute the two wars that Bush started. Those were the sources of the Bush deficits even before the Great Recession hit. It is very unclear what it is the Republican will set out to cut in order to trim the deficit: Expenditures on highways and other vital infrastructure? Support for the military? Expenditures on helping us educate our kids? Support for the millions of unemployed? Food Stamps for families? Medical care for low income families? It seems unlikely that the aggressive pursuit of any of these will improve the Republicans' standing with the majority of American voters.

The Republican congressional leadership seems to recognize the fact that there is little they can do about the issues that so many Americans are worried about: namely jobs and the federal deficit.

Speaking candidly before their handlers told them to tone it down, that leadership made clear that their objective over the next two years is not to fix any of the nation's economic problems but, rather, to embarrass the President and Democrats in Congress so that Republicans can claim the Whitehouse and both Houses of Congress in the 2012 elections. That is, the next two years will be used for unrelenting partisan attacks that represent an early opening of the 2012 presidential election campaign.
That will produce nothing but more paralysis, gridlock, and negative partisan bickering. It certainly does not represent responsible governing, but it is, unfortunately, all that we are likely to get.

Despite the official proclamation that the recession ended early this year and the economy is now growing, we certainly are not out of the economic woods yet. There are more jobs losses coming in state and local government as stimulus money runs out and state and local budgets have to be balanced. The foreclosure avalanche is still growing and is likely to spread from residential homes to commercial real estate. Even those who do not risk losing their homes have seen the value of their assets, the most important of which for most people is their home, decline drastically. This makes them substantially poorer than they were two years ago and is likely to suppress household spending for some time to come. The ongoing housing mortgage crisis will also keep the construction industry from bouncing back. The stagnation and high unemployment rates will continue.

That will force deficits higher. As an International Monetary Fund report recently pointed out, most of the increases in government deficits here in the US as well as in other developed countries are tied to declines in tax revenues due to workers earning less, household buy less, and firms producing less. The deficits are not due to the explosive growth in new discretionary spending that can be quickly cut. If we cannot get households buying again and firms hiring so that that can produce more to meet the rising demand, we are not going to do anything significant about either jobs or the deficit.

That is why the bumper sticker political dialogue we are having about "cutting the deficit" by "shrinking government" or magically stimulating businesses to create more jobs to produce things no is in a position to buy is just so much hot air that will get us no where.

If you thought this last political campaign was pointlessly nasty and unproductive, just watch the next two years!

Gallagher attacks Toole for work on gay marriage

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:33:02 AM MST

Republicans are eying a rare chance to take control of the Montana Public Service Commission, the body that regulates utilities, in an election year in which their brand of politics seems to be riding high.

But over the last 30 years, Democrats have been favored by voters in the role of policing the utility businesses. The Republicans last took control of the PSC in 2002, and that was only for a couple of years....

Democrats hold four of the five seats on the commission, with Brad Molnar, of Billings, the sole Republican. The GOP would have to win both races to take control, likely placing Molnar in the role of chairman.

Brad Molnar. As chairman. The Brad Molnar.

Mull that over people.

Anyhoo - I want to talk about Ken Toole. You know the guy: fierce consumer advocate, opponent of the disastrous energy deregulation. Exactly the kind of commissioner the state needs, one who looks out after ratepayers first.

Well, his opponent has gone negative in a pretty strong way, using gays as a wedge. From a letter Gallagher sent out:

n 2004 Ken Toole, then Executive Director for the Montana Human Rights Network, joined with other "Pride" organizations and formed a group called Montanans for Families and Fairness to oppose CI-96, the one man + one woman = marriage amendment.

So far no problem. BUT, then the group sent intimidating letters to hundreds of protestant and catholic churches in Montana threatening them with IRS and election problems, and warning the churches not to support of CI-96.

Next, the group sent an infiltrator to the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church where, in an evening service, they presented a Montana Family Foundation simulcast event titled "The Battle for Marriage" and made petitions supporting CI-96 available to those attending the event.

The group followed through with their threat and filed a complaint with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practice which began a legal battle that finally ended in 2009, when the US 9th Circuit held that the Church's first amendment rights had indeed been violated and that the charges amounted to "petty bureaucratic harassment."
The result, Montana tax payers paid all the legal expenses, including $225,000 inserted into the 2009 MT Appropriations bill HB-003. That's right! We the taxpayers paid a $225,000 bailout for what Toole's group started!

Where to start? How about with an analysis (pdf) of the 9th Circuit Court decision? Which explains that the Commissioner of Political Practices found validity in the MHRN's complaint, calling the church an "incidental political committee," and the subsequent appeal to the district court was rejected. The Ninth Circuit overturned the decision, criticizing the law, not MHRN, because the church's expenditures were so small, it wasn't worth reporting and cases against small political donors would discourage small donors from participating in the public process. What's not mentioned here is the church's tax-exempt status, which comes at the cost of that church not participating in political activities - which it clearly was in this case, as all parties agree.

Got it? The MHRN was monitoring churches to see if they were hiding behind their tax-exempt status while engaging in political activity around the anti-gay-marriage initiative. And they were.

The next question that should come to you should be, what the h*ll does this have to do with the PSC? The answer, of course, is "nothing."

Which makes sense, given how inexperienced and unsuited Gallagher is for the PSC. That's probably why Gallagher is calling Toole a "career politician," which is another way of saying Toole was once chair of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications committee...that's, well, pretty closely related to the job he's doing now, to say the least. Gallagher's also against "any other irresponsible 'global plan' based on questionable 'science'," and calls Toole a "devoted 'global warming disciple'" and accused him of supporting a "socialist version of the Cap and Trade policy."

That's right! A Denier and conspiracy theorist!

Brad Molnar...chair...

Turns out Gallagher also manages a Helena water and sewer utility that's "owned" by a LLC registered in Nevada, allowing both companies - which Gallagher has ownership stake in - to evade Montana taxes. Which gives you an idea of what kind of consumer advocate he'd be.

You're probably now asking yourself how a clown like Gallagher even won his party's nomination for the race. Well, that was the race Brad Johnson punted after blowing a 0.24 BAC in a May traffic stop.

Naturally Gallagher's endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce.

Donate to Ken Toole, or contact him to see how you can help out.

What you won't find in the paper about the Montana GOP Convention

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 21:38:43 PM MST

I have no idea why this item of extreme interest was excluded from coverage by those reporting the convention  According to Happel, the Montana Republican party passed a resolution

 "for the requirement of complete documentation of candidate eligibility before candidates for President, Vice President, US Senators or Representatives can even be placed on the ballot."

Like the birther bill introduced (and going nowhere) in Congress, the Montana Republicans voted their support for requiring candidates to submit a birth certificate: a wink and a nod action that some Republicans are going to have to try to  maintain is somehow not related to the birthers' claims.  Hmmm...Republican candidates want to win the votes of the birthers, but still want to pretend not to actually be that stupid one of them.

This could get tricky.  What if a Montana reporter asks the candidate if she or he agrees with this new tenant of the Montana GOP core platform?  I mean look what happened when MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked one of the birther bill's sponsors on the show if he believed Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, Rep. Campbell (R-CA) hedged, saying, "As far as I know, yes, OK?" He told Matthews, "it doesn`t matter whether I have doubts or not."  Birther association also became an embarrassment for the Ohio GOP, and all they did wrong was have a speaker tell a birther joke at their convention--Montana Republicans added birtherism to the list of their fundamental beliefs.

I guess I am not at all shocked to find that the Republican Party is packed with birthers that still, still, have not figured out that our own president released his birth certificate like two years ago.   But I am kind of surprised that the Republican party leadership were unable to quash this ridiculous addition to the platform that could be a real embarrassment for its candidates.   It could also be evidence of growing internal division in their ranks and/or a general state of chaos.

It will be interesting to hear Rehberg publicly respond to questions about this from the media or in the final debate in Whitefish this weekend.

Read Happels entire missive in the extended text. There are lots of other gems in this that weren't in the paper...  

You can't be the party of tomorrow with nothing but yesterday's ideas

by: Montana Cowgirl

Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 18:22:59 PM MST

In addition to the usual political speech drivel, Steele told Montana Republicans that they needed to involve more young people.

"the next time you have this dinner, you need more of them in here. You need to go out, encourage, recruit and involve them. We are absolutely the party of tomorrow".

The party of tomorrow?  

This is a party who prides itself in shunning modern science not only terms of creationism or "intelligent design" as they are trying to rebrand it now, but also a "disbelief" in climate change, and opposition to embryonic stem cell research. Not only do they cling to the ideologies of the past, but as the world changes they have no new ideas to meet new challenges.

Rehberg, the party's only top official, introduced no ideas in his speech, nor, one could argue, in his entire term in Congress.  No solution of his own for health care, and no proposals of his own to stimulate the economy--except the ideas of the 1970s and 1980s.  News Flash Montana Republicans: It's not the same world anymore.

Steele further chastised Republicans for their losing record in Montana races:

"You got two Democrat (U.S.) senators. Now, how the heck does that happen?" he said. "You gotta change that. You got a Democrat governor in Montana."

I'll tell you how it happens-and why few young people are remotely interested in Republicans.  The Republican party is outdated and out of touch with the current world. Political ideologies do not exist in a vacuum. They need to meet the problems of the world as it exists. Democrats in Montana understand this, which may be why-despite our so-called red state status-they have been increasingly successful in Montana.

Say what you like about the Democrats we elected,  at least they understand that a new world requires new thinking.  As the world continues to evolve at an accelerating pace, conservatives, who instinctively hunker down and cling to the past, will find themselves increasingly outside of the mainstream.

Bruce Tutvedt (R-Kalispell, MT) Prefers Victoria's Secret

by: Montana Cowgirl

Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 17:17:27 PM MST

Montana State Senator Bruce Tutvedt (R-Kalispell), a self-stated "family values" Republican who is supported by the Montana Family Foundation, forgot that what you put on the internet can be seen by anyone when he became a fan of the women's underwear seller Victoria's Secret.

It's not illegal, not unheard of (someone has to buy women's underwear), but definitely politically tone-deaf.

A Bright Green Rumor in the Flathead

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:22:38 AM MST

It was that Sen. Ryan Zinke, the Republican Senator from Whitefish, is so pissed off that neither Tester, Baucus nor Schweitzer nor Rehberg can get their act together and get a final agreement with British Columbia to prevent coal mining on the North Fork of the Flathead River, that he is planning to introduce a bond measure in the legislature to seal the deal, and take the credit.

The issue with the North Fork is that the coal plots on the Canadian side are worth a bloody fortune, while those on the Montana side are not.  So, while BC and Montana have struck a deal on a moratorium, it hinges on finding a way to compensate BC for about $17 million worth of sunken costs on their end.  So we need to send over the border some federal or state cash, or perhaps some mineral rights.

The word on the street up in the Whitefish, where this issue looms extremely large, is that Zinke will introduce a bond measure in the state legislature to accomplish this.  At the bottom of all of this is the filth and effluent and goo that would run off into the river and into the Montana Flathead valley if the Canadian mining were to go forward.  Max has been talking about it for 30 years but has never actually done anything about it. Tester doesn't seem much engaged at all. Schweitzer got an  MOU signed, but it's not more than a piece of paper that states desire and intent. The essential thing is money.

This move by Zinke would be brilliant. Zinke is a former  special forces commander and otherwise a somewhat moderate Republican, often mentioned as a likely US Senate candidate. If he pulled off a deal with British Columbia where the Big Three Dems could not, he could possibly win the Flathead in a statewide election with 70 percent of the vote (the usual 60 plus  a few hard-core conservation voters). That, with a respectable showing in Missoula as well (where the issue is also big), would make him formidable.

And beyond that, he'd be able to talk about how he got something done, something big and good. That's not something you don't often hear from a Republican.

Rehberg's Latest Lie Totally Exposed

by: Montana Cowgirl

Tue May 11, 2010 at 19:47:05 PM MST

"The staff members "were not working."

Rehberg's hack "doesn't believe it" because it is a blatant lie.  

Some friends of mine from DC were in town this weekend visiting, and over dinner we were talking about local politics.  Both friends had worked for members of Congress in years past--one for more than 10 years.  They found the recent story about Rehberg, the accident and the alcohol issues "absolutely mind-blowingly ludacris."  
 
They filled me in on what it means to work for a member of Congress and why Rehberg's actions then and now are indefensible.  
 
The part of the latest Rehberg story infuriated them the most was the claim that the staff "weren't on the clock."  They told me that when they were staffing their "member," they were always on the clock - and not just because they are salaried. It was their job to stick to her or him like glue, no matter the time, place or situation.  That's they whole reason they were hired.
 
They said it doesn't matter whether or not it was a "working dinner."  When a staffer is with the "member" - s/he is working.  Reporters are welcome to ask this of any congressional staffer anywhere.  Apparently, this is how it is in every state.  Period. End of story.

Second, Rehberg has a responsibility for his staff, he shouldn't put them in dangerous situations where they really can't walk away.  He obviously doesn't want to admit his staffers were obviously staffing him, because according to the Department of Labor: 

"Employers also have a general duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide their employees with work and a workplace free from recognized, serious hazards."

What kind of choice were those two staffers offered?  Get in the boat being driven by a drunk, or abandon the Congressman, embarrassing him in front of Barkus, and then figure out how to get back to Bigfork on foot?  Risk their jobs?

Rehberg put his staff in serious danger and he has never taken responsibility for it. Apparently, in no other state would Rehberg have been allowed to get away with this.  But here in Montana, when you combine Rehberg's absurd sense of big-fish-in-a-small-pond entitlement, with a compliant editorial corps that wants its reporters to function as stenographers rather than journalists, you get a big ol' liar and the merry band of liars with whom he's chosen to surround himself.

The Rehberg Fundraising Puzzle

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:17:37 PM MST

He filed for reelection long ago, and had about $700K in the bank leftover from his previous campaign. Since then,  has raised $816k and spent $706k.  Worse, in the last calendar year, he's spent virtually every nickel that he has raised.  For example, his quarterly FEC report, filed last week, shows that in the last quarter he raised 153K and spent 160K. That pattern extends back through the last several quarters.  The expenditures are highly gratuitous--huge payments to consultants and operatives and media firms and mail houses and research firms--totally out of line with normal campaign expenditures you'd expect at this point in a campaign, showing absolutely no effort whatsoever to conserve funds.

A new candidate with great fundraising prowess but a poor understanding of how to manage a campaign's finances might engage in careless spending like this. In fact John McCain was bankrupt in late 2007 because he had pissed away money on staff and consultants unnecessarily. It happens.  But Rehberg is a veteran campaigner and has not done anything like this before.

It is even more peculiar when you consider that Rehberg is the presumptive challenger to Tester in 2012, and every nickel he can save in this year's race can, under federal law, be carried over to a Senate campaign.  Since he probably won't have to spend much against Gopher, McDonald or Gernant, (neither of which has any money in the bank), he would be saving every penny so he could start out against Tester with a giant war-chest.  

So why would he be burning through money like he is, with crazy line-items, paying $6K a month to his campaign manager (to a kid who'd probably do it for 2K), $4 grand a month to a media consultant, $6.5K a month to Erik Iverson's consulting firm, IS LLC, and tens of thousands in charges at resorts in Las Vegas and Big Sky and lots of other things like that?  

One explanation: He is going to run for Governor.

Under this theory, everything makes perfect sense. He cannot carry over money from a federal campaign to a state campaign. So, rather than hoard money that will not be usable in his next campaign, he's doing a shady, borderline-illegal, but clever thing: overpaying people, his consultants, his campaign staff, firms, etc., essentially using federal money to pre-pay for what he will need when he runs for Governor.  

All these people will give him a heavily discounted rate (wink) for their services in 2012, because they will have been previously and handsomely compensated. Heck, they might even work for free (wink) because they like him so much.

And remember, too, that a Gubernatorial candidate can only raise money in $600 increments (per-donor contribution limit), whereas a Congressional candidate can raise in $2300 increments. so to be able to off-load expenses with easy-to-come-by federal campaign cash is a luxury.  And yes, it's easy to come by.  As we all know, when you are an incumbent Congressman, special interests in DC write you checks even if you don't ask for them. You don't raise money--you simply collect.

So I'm putting down a bet at Ladbrokes. R nominee in 2012 for Gov is Denny Rehberg.

Lucky Day, Denny

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 16:01:06 PM MST

This year, of all years, would have been the year for the Tea Party to run to the right of Rehberg and keep him honest, bringing Tea Party constituents along for the ride.  And yet not a peep from the Tea Party.  It shows you, once again, how the Tea-baggers lack teeth (figuratively, as well as literally).

Rehberg is vulernerable to an attack from the Right.  He voted in favor of the greatest invasion to Americans' privacy rights ever made, the Real ID Act, which would have required Montanans to carry what is essentially a Federal ID Card. (HR 1268, became law 2005.)  That drives the black helicopter crowd nuts.  The State Legislature, including every single (humiliated) Republican, had to step in and pass a law forbidding this breach of privacy and state's rights that Rehberg foisted on us.

He voted to buy eight Gulfstream corporate-style jets to ferry rich, important Congressmen around the globe, $54 million a piece, replete with  LCD monitors, plush carpeting, and, (quoting from the brochure for the aircraft) "room for golf clubs and other executive conveniences" that Rehberg has become accustomed to.

His personal shortcomings have also come under public scrutiny lately.  No, actually, I'm talking about how he got wasted, let a friend drive drunk, and ran up an estimated $1.5 million tab for health care and work comp claims for himself and his staff; and now a poaching incident, the kind that usually takes place when New York City slickers pay a guide an extra few thousand to break the law to get themselves a nice trophy.

Rehberg is lucky that no one told the Tea Party that he voted for every single bloated budget that George Bush put forward. These budgets spent more money than in any other eight year period in the history of Congress, and created the trillions of dollars of debt they're so upset about.

Host of problems snag Montana GOP that could hinder candidate recruitment

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 19:32:21 PM MST

RNC Chair Michael Steele has been criticized for depleting RNC coffers by two-thirds in a non-election year.  Here in Montana, we find the same problem: the party had only $14k in the bank according to its last FEC report.

Michael Steele has been publicly wondering if Republicans were able to win or lead.  Montana Republicans have also been publicly wondering about their leadership abilities.  

In addition, Montana's GOP is facing massive turnover.  They've had four different directors in a period of a little over a year. Between Oct 2008 and December 2009  Jake Eaton, Larry Grinde, Max Hunsaker, and now Gary Carlson have all (briefly) held the post. Not much seems to be going on.  The most recent "news" listed on their website was from June 25, 2009

The lack of direction is  also due to the fact that Republicans lack any statewide elected leaders beyond Rehberg, who isn't the type that can inspire others to get involved.

No doubt any potential candidates with half a brain will see this situation and think, "No thanks, not this year."