The idea of reimporting cheap prescription drugs from Canada, where drugs cost a fraction of what the identical medicine costs here, has been dormant for many months, if not years. Then, yesterday, Schweitzer stormed into the china shop and shattered some dishes.
Two questions arise. First, why had the issue gone dormant? Short Answer: The Obama Administration cut a deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry, early in the healthcare reform game, in which Obama pledged to kill any efforts to reimport drugs from Canada in return for the Drug Industry running TV Ads and other media--$80 million worth--in support of Obama's healthcare plan.
That's a shady deal by any measurement, unless the ultimate Obama plan finds some way to drastically reduce or subsidize prescription prices. Thus far the plan does not appear to do so.
The second question is what the White House and/or Secretary Sebelius is going to tell Schweitzer. Has Schweitzer gotten too cute? Has he poked the tiger one time too many? Will Obama somehow retaliate or freeze-out our Governor? Or, has Schweitzer put them in an impossible position and thus revived a very important issue, and put it on course for some sort of resolution? Perhaps even a concession from the drug industry that is something more than a promise to run stupid and ineffective campaign ads for a stupid and ineffective corporate giveaway which the White House is trying to sell us?
This is a major poke in the eye of the Obama team and is sure to get some national attention (as Schweitzer always seems to do.) But hey, the Obama Administration deserves it.
The so-called champion of alternative energy - what he called "clean and green" -- led the charge of the State Land Board in lowering the minimum bid price for the Otter Creek coal from 25 cents to 15 cents a ton.
His actions and his vote were bad enough. But they were accompanied by this outrageous statement:
"The policy deciding whether there will be coal-mining is not set in Helena, it is set in Washington, D.C.," he said shortly before the vote. "If this board votes not to lease coal at any price, there will still be development at Otter Creek."
So, if I understand this correctly: Policies emanating from Washington, DC, are good and must be followed?
Seems like this is the guy who has made a career of running against Washington, DC, often referring to it as a cesspool. After all, he proudly thumbed his nose at the feds over REAL ID and told the US government to shove it up its ass. He didn't like it and wasn't afraid to say so.
Hell. He was all over the national media. He basked for weeks in the glow of the spotlight even though it was a legislative resolution and he had no official role in it whatsoever. The resolution required no action on his part. None. A safe and sanitary act of defiance.
Observers erroneously concluded this bright star from the West was the real hero. Sorry. The hypocrite that he is was just acting. Most of his five years in office have been an act.
"Clean and green"? Foreget it. That was a sideshow and grist for the 2008 election cycle. No, for this guy, some national energy policies must be followed, now matter how ill-advised, no matter how dispicable. With the dirty corporate coal lobbyists leading the way, national energy policy ensures dirty coal is king. They have hundreds of millions to spend to fight any Congressional effort, no matter how lame, to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
And, the "Good Gov," as he is so reverently referred to in the postings on LiTW, did what he said he wouldn't do: Give our resourves away. Where he could have made a difference, he chose to lead by following corporate dogma and money.
Has he ever said he believes that coal contributes to climate change and global warming Don't think so. His escape is 'clean coal technology' and and a boondoggle known as carbon sequestration.
So, tell me, Governor, when an 80-car coal train passes through Helena, how many thousands of tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented because of clean coal technology? Or, sequestered by carbon sequesatration?
Like you, he knows the answer. None.
The Otter Creek episode is a tragedy that will unfold for decades and centuries to come. The December and February votes represent pandering to corporate interests at its very worst.
Off course, the issue was framed as one in support of economic development and job creation for eastern Montana. But, tell me: Is there an example of a coal-producing anywhere on this planet where coal mining produces prosperity in the region where the mining takes place?
Yes, it took two other votes to deliver the coup d grace. One Democrat led two others into the abyss. With a 66 percent approval rating, this guy can do no wrong. Or, so it seemed. Just imagine what would have happened had five Republicans occupied these statewide offices.
Oh, and one last thing: What happens when there are no bids at the 15 cent minimum bid? It is abundantly clear that the coal industry colluded not to bid at 25 cents. Since the December vote, it has had us by the testes.
In unison now, along with the the Schweitzer trio,"We want to show we can be just like Wyoming and give away our resources. Just name your price. We'll approve it. Trust us. If it doesn't all work out, we'll blame it on Washington, DC."
A divided state Land Board today voted to lower the minimum bid for leasing 570 million tons of state-owned coal in southeastern Montana's Otter Creek Valley, dropping the upfront payment from 25 cents per ton to 15 cents a ton.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer, part of the board's 3-2 majority in favor of lowering the bid, told a packed hearing room at the Capitol that the 25-cent minimum set by the board in December was like the opening call at an auction, and that auctioneers usually lower the price when there is no takers....
State Auditor Monica Lindeen and Secretary of State Linda McCullough joined Schweitzer in supporting the new bid minimum.
Steve Bullock joined Denise Juneau in voting against the price cut.
George Ochenski saw a double standard in the governor's vote after the recent deal with British Columbia to halt resource extraction on the Canadian side of the Flathead Valley:
Travel now to southeast Montana, far from the rich and famous of the bustling Flathead Valley to the Tongue River Valley. While there's a distinct lack of real estate activity, new subdivisions and upscale McMansions, the area is home to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and family ranches that span generations. This serene landscape of gently rolling hills stands in contrast to Glacier's rocky, snow-covered peaks and, unlike the Flathead's west slope, precipitation is sparse and welcome. As a result, both surface and groundwater are very precious commodities for agricultural and domestic use.
Why is water for Flathead Valley Montanans worth saving, but Tongue River Montanans get their scarce water sacrificed to coal mining? That's our dirty double standard. And why, after endlessly touting himself as "clean and green," would Schweitzer vote for mining coal that is likely going to Pacific Rim customers' dirty power plants?...
Honestly, I just don't understand why Schweitzer is so interested in developing Otter Creek coal. (McCullogh, on the other hand, always has been irrationally pro-resource-extraction, and Lindeen -- a team player - has Walt in her office.)
It can't be for political considerations: this is Schweitzer's last term. Unless he's eying a Senate seat - Baucus'? - his political future, if any, is on the federal level, in the Cabinet or as a presidential candidate. (Sure, Sec's of the Interior are usually pro-coal Westerners, but the Good Guv's already established himself on that front. Otter Creek won't help.) But...there's been absolutely no rumor of his running.
Does Schweitzer believe development of Otter Creek would be good for Montana? Possibly. It would bring money and jobs to the area - but resource extraction in no way is the best or even efficient means of bringing money into a community. Check out this Grist report on an MIT study on jobs. Investing in coal is one of the least efficient means of producing jobs. One of the best? Land restoration:
Conservation-investing in, for instance, the expansion of National Parks and other local, state, and federal recreation areas through, for instance, the Land and Water Conservation Fund-isn't too far behind. Some of the direct jobs in this sector include park rangers, park transportation workers, and other park personnel.
Relative to other spending options, investments in forests and parks tend to go towards wages rather than capital investments-providing the greatest benefit to communities, especially in economically difficult times (since Nature largely provides the materials that go into making a tree or a prairie grow for free, you don't need the same kind of capital as you do for, say, building a highway).
The actual jobs impact of forest investment is actually significantly greater than what's represented in the above table. A variety of other studies have analyzed job creation through conservation and found dramatic indirect effects. Expand a national park, national forest, river or local recreation area, and spending on and employment in outdoor recreation-everything from birdwatching and hiking to fishing and hunting - is dramatically increased.
Schweitzer's a smart guy. He knows this stuff. After all, Pat Williams has been talking about a "Restoration Economy" for some time.
There is a weird obsession in Montana with resource extraction, probably because it's so entwined with Montana's history and, consequently, its self-identity, where past is romanticized hopelessly beyond recognition. Just as a trust-fund hobby sheep farmer and real-estate developer wears cowboy boots to claim authenticity, so politcos adopt pro-coal positions to prove their connection to this unreal past.
Of course reality is different from it's romantic memory. After all, the biggest hero from the state's mining history is a man who was hung from a railroad trestle for demanding a living wage and safe working conditions for coal miners.
Tamara "Tammy" Hall, the ultra-angry, ultra right-winger in Bozeman who pens an occasional column for the Bozeman Chronicle and is supposedly a "motivational speaker" for a living, has written a hater-piece about the Governor this week. She compares him to a rat, calling him arrogant, and using the favorite new accusation of the right wing: that he is a "celebrity" (talk about desperate). It's probably for the best that the column doesn't appear online, as I'd hate to have to link to it.
The interesting part about Hall, and the small handful of angry, downwardly-mobile types that pay any attention to her, is that Schweitzer recently got the endorsement of Newt Gingrich and the Wall Street Journal. I don't care much for Newt or the WSJ's Stephen Moore who wrote the editorial, but Schweitzer did deserve the credit because he made the decision, when the state was flush with cash, to save money rather than spend it.
(And Schweitzer is probably the only politician in the last fifty years to get praise from the WSJ while advocating a Canadian Health System.)
Nevertheless, the continuously manic and angry Hall may have become delusional as well, and should check the label on her medication. Because if she is calling somebody a tax-and-spend politician when they have just gotten praise from Gingcrich and the WSJ for being fiscally responsible, she probably needs to up her dose.
Brian Schweitzer recently announced a contest to save money in Montana. They're asking for ideas to be submitted through the state website. I proposed providing rewards to agencies that come in under budget to get away from the use-it-or-lose-it mindset that current budget rules inspire (my understanding, possibly exaggerated). One of my coworkers proposed moving the state's email systems over to Google Apps, which seems to run far more efficiently and easily than the current Department of Admin setups.
Mike Jopek is proposing moving a lot of state money into local banks in order to free up capital for Montana small businesses. This is less of a savings idea and more of a combination of economic development/fuck you to Wall Street.
What else can the state do? What should they consider?
The Montana Budget and Policy Center, a fiscal think tank based in Helena, has a new report out looking at how to cut spending to maintain Montana's balanced budget. They conclude that the state currently needs to enact about $15 million in cuts. The Governor has prepared for as much as 3 times that.
MBPC has some other suggestions, including warnings that excessive cuts may cause negative ripple effects as well as some guidance as to where to target initial cuts.
A bad week for Republicans. First, despite the insistence by Republicans that Brian Schweitzer doesnt know what he is doing, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial praising the Governor's solid fiscal management as a national example of how states can operate frugally while still fulfilling important obligations. No response yet from Republican leader Bob Story, who recently argued that Judy Martz is responsible for Montana's current fiscal strength.
Then, a new chapter in Tennisgate. You'll recall Republican Bozeman Mayor Jeff Krauss got into trouble recently when he chose to spend stimulus money on a new rubber-tiled tennis court. Schweitzer publicly chided this expenditure, and the Mayor ended up having to defend himself on Fox 'News'. This past Monday the volume was amplified when Schweitzer decided to attend, as a citizen, the weekly City Commission meeting in Bozeman.
According to several observers, Schweitzer was first accosted outside of the meeting room by Commissioner Chris Mehl, who cursed at him, saying:
"what you are doing is bullsh**, Governor."
(Mehl obviously takes his tennis very seriously).
When the meeting came to order, Schweitzer waited in the back of the room as six or seven proponents of the tennis court project gave their testimony. Then it was Schweitzer's turn to speak. The only opponent present, Schweitzer said that he, as a property owner in Bozeman and a tennis player, supported fixing the courts, but believed such a project was inappropriate use of federal stimulus funds. The house was packed mostly with Krauss partisans, and there was some hooting and hollering as Krauss and Mehl tried to razz the Governor, questioning him from their perches. Whatever you think of Schweitzer, this much can be said: not many gunfighters would walk into a saloon like this one.
Krauss and Mehl, in what a number of people saw as disrespectful behavior toward a Governor, started interrupting Schweitzer and attempting to pepper him him with spicy one-liners. But Schweitzer, who did not interrupt the commissioners, hushed the crowd when he said:
"Just because somebody puts a chocolate cake in front of you, doesn't mean you have to eat the whole thing,"
in response to Krauss' argument that Bozeman has the legal right to spend the funds on tennis courts.
Personally I think Krauss has picked a stupid fight. The Governor's position on this issue is very popular, even in Bozeman where the Chronicle online poll of over 900 respondents shows a 74-26% vote against the tennis project. Plus, it turns out that the tennis court contract was awarded to a Minnesota firm, meaning no Montana jobs would be created.
Finally, if Krauss has aspirations beyond city council, he is going to have a tough time. As of now, the notable items on his resume are 1) spending stimulus money on tennis, and 2) a city policy that required all job applicants to hand over their passwords to their e-mail and facebook accounts.
That resume won't get you very far in a Republican primary.
Across the nation, calls for GOP Chair Michael Steele to make an apology for his racist, uneducated comments on national televison continue to mount, but he's not having any of it. Huffington Post has his comments defending his racism on the Dennis Miller radio show:
I said look you want o come after me, you want to do this job then take it from me. But until then, shut up and get in line.... This is why are at 22 percent approval in the polls, why no one wants to identify with us because we spend more time tearing each other down as opposed to talking about those principles that have defined us for generations.
What kind of "principles that have defined us for generations" is he talking about?
Here in Montana, American Indians are our state's first residents and among our most honored leaders and elders. Governor Schweitzer has worked hard to rebuild the relationships between our state and the sovereign nations within its borders. And for the first time, Montana voters elected our first American Indian woman, Denise Juneau, to statewide office.
We want leaders who will end racism, not promote it. So we want to know: Will the Montana GOP renounce the bigotry and ignorance of their national leader or will they continue to lend him their silent support?
Normally, I'm a big fan. I voted for you and was very pleased when you won. I have in the past defended you vigorously from spurious claims that you go in big for pot, porn, and perversion, and I would still stand up to those kinds of slanderous whack-jobs. However, and I'm only saying this because I care, I really wish you would stop talking about the death spiral of the Montana economy while simultaneously giving your employees handsome raises. The timing is probably coincidental, but it doesn't look good and it certainly doesn't engender good feelings among ordinary Montanans, some of whom had been hoping to find jobs at some point in this young decade.
Bozeman's deputy Mayor Jeff Krauss has a history of brilliant moves, but this really takes the cake!
The Bozeman mayor is now touting an appearance on Fox and Friends in defense of a fancier tennis court in Bozeman. I guess this guy would rather see the state cut Meals-on-Wheels? Bozeman Republicans are too much!
He attempts a "defense" of his actions on 4 & 20 Blackbirds. However, his defence fails to explain how an out-of-state contractor building a tennis court in Bozeman will stimulate Montana's economy.
Krauss writes:
Bozeman's general fund budget dedicates an average of about 9% each year to parks and recreation. We have two swimming pools, many parks, baseball and soccer fields, tennis courts, ice skating and hockey rinks and miles of trails and bike lanes.
So, you don't really need the new tennis court?
***UPDATE: Wulfgar pointed out that Krauss is now the mayor of Bozeman and that he did appear of Fox News. Wulfgar also says this guy was vehement about correcting the fiasco after it happened, and if so that's good at least, though it would have been better to prevent it from happening in the first place. You can see his apology here from the article I linked to above:
"I'm sorry that we couldn't get in front of this quicker. When Thursday came around and we tried to answer the questions from the national press, before we started defending it on Thursday night, I'm sorry we missed that opportunity to apologize and by Friday much of the damage had been done. What really is needed now from us to the community and the state is that we apologize for wandering down a road that violated basic rights of our citizens and we will do all we can to restore that public trust," Deputy Mayor Jeff Krauss said.
Something that really has to chap state GOP leaders' asses is a story like this highlighting that Montana's fiscal picture, despite being imperfect, is way, way better than most states. That's a testament to the work of our Governor who has faced a tremendous amount of pressure to make permanent revenue cuts in recent years. He resisted and the state is better off for it.
Sound financial management isn't everything, but accomplishing other outcomes without it is really, really hard. Different management in this state in recent years would have put us in a place where we'd either be raising taxes right now or cutting truly core education, corrections, or health care functions (what's the old saw, state government educates, incarcerates, and medicates?). We're not being forced to do that right now. Good news for all of us.
And something worth keeping in mind as people battle it out for the state house. Ask them about how they want to manage the state's finances. If tax cuts is the whole answer, ask for more detail.
I'm still catching up on the news over the holidays, and I just saw this news:
Gov. Brian Schweitzer is picking a Bozeman lawyer and former state senator to fill a vacancy on the Montana Supreme Court.
Schweitzer announced the selection of Mike Wheat on Wednesday. Current Supreme Court Justice John Warner is retiring at the end of the year.
Wheat is an excellent choice for the position. During the state attorney general's race, I got a chance to sit down with Mike for nearly an hour and pick his brain, and I found an incredibly principled lawyer deeply committed to the law and to the state of Montana.
Wheat was George Ochenski's pick for attorney general, and you can read his thoughts on Mike's candidacy and stance on the death penalty in a pre-primary election column.
I went on a pilgrimage and a Board of Regents meeting broke out.
For the uninitiated, the Board of Regents is the autonomous governing body of the Montana University System (MUS), which includes community colleges and the colleges of technology.
The legislature appropriates money to MUS, but it is the Board and Presidents who, through a convoluted and arcane process, set policy for the system and decide who gets what and how much. Under the cloak of academic freedom and constitutional license, the "Board" strenuously safeguards its independence from the grubby clutches of the legislature.
These folks also determine how much more students pay in fees and tuition for the privilege of partaking of the enterprise. Not enough dough? Raise tuition. Or, freeze faculty salaries. Or, lay off staff.
So, just who are these 'Regents' and how do they earn the assignment? The Governor appoints the seven regents, six to seven-year overlapping terms. And this pretty much Schweitzer's crew. (Believe it or not, he re-appointed one Racicot appointee and the term of one Judy Martz (remember her?) appointee ends next year.):
Stephen Barrett (Bozeman) - Chair
Clayton Christian (Missoula) - Vice-Chair
Lila Taylor (Busby)
Lynn Morrison-Hamilton (Havre)
Todd Buchanan (Billings)
Janine Pease (Poplar), seventh member is
Robert Barnosky (Billings), the student regent who serves a one-year term.
Ed Butcher: Montana politician from Lewistown; member of the state house of representatives; best known for his big mouth, and ugly, insensitive remarks; extreme right-wing views; successfully sponsored a bill in the 2009 Legislature to authorize horse slaughter plants in Montana.
This column is must reading. It even includes a laid-back picture of the Governor.
Americans don't east horsemeat, you see. So, Ed argued during the deliberations on his bill that the meat would be exported to Europe. The problem is that the European Union is about to require extensive documentation (really a life history) of each horse. Kinda concerned about the industrial-strength medications horses are pumped full of and their effects on humans.
With that venture on the ropes, he found another potential market: Mainland China. That's right: Communist China. Given his outlandish views, one might conclude that Ed would be a bit cautious when dealing with the menacing Red Hoard, the people of the real People' Republic.
Yet Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winifred, acknowledged that any such plans are a long way off, even if he can help arrange a visit by Chinese business interests.
"You have to work on their timeframe, and they're very cautious," Butcher said. "These people are good businessmen. You have to be able to present a very logical business proposal."
Ed says communists are good capitalists. . . ? ? ? ! ! !
OMG: This Globalism thing has gone too far!
And, as Nick D wrote in the comments of the Missoulian piece, "if logic is what the Chinese investors are looking for, none of the Butcher guys should be anywhere near the conversation."
Unfortunately for anyone hoping for some accountability today, Sen. Max Baucus doesn't face reelection until 2014. Give a senator that much job security, and you're not going to get much responsiveness. He's accountable to his voters just every six years. He checks in with his lobbyist pals every day.
But one thing is for sure, despite our era of short-attention span politics, I have no intention on forgetting these health care votes. While I've long been tolerant of Democrats' needs to represent their districts, even if it occasionally contradicts party orthodoxy, health care cuts to the very core of what it means to be a Democrat. And those Democrats who are more concerned with insurance company profits than they are about regular people have fundamentally betrayed what it means to be a Democrat. There is no justification whatsoever for abandoning people in need for monied interests. None.
2012 is all about Lieberman. It'll be the end of his political career. But 2014, I'm seeing that as the year of the Baucus. The year that we rid the Senate of his useless carcass, and finish what we started when we got rid of Conrad Burns in 2006. And we can turn that delegation from one of the worst in the nation, to one of the best. We're halfway there with Jon Tester, who hopefully won't disappoint on this issue (he's currently doing great work on FISA and the Patriot Act). We could finish the job by replacing Baucus with current Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.
Good luck there, Markos. I can't imagine that would happen, I just don't see Brian Schweitzer taking on Max Baucus.
Still, it's good to see that Moulitsas has his eyes on the 2014 Montana Senate race. He was instrumental in nudging Jon Tester towards his 2006 primary win; there's no doubt the right candidate would be well funded and helped. And with Baucus' high-profile fail on healthcare reform, I suspect there will plenty of Montana Democrats and erstwhile Baucus supporters who'd vote for someone else in the primary, not to mention roll their sleeves up and do the grunt work to elect someone more representative of the state.
It appears that Ed Butcher's horse slaughterhouse "get out of jail free" bill has become law by default, thanks to the Good Guv failing to either veto it or sign it.
In its opinion page today, the Gazette editorial board reiterates its objections to the bill for the usual reasons: it basically gives one particularly lax industry a free pass on health and environmental regulations. But there's also these two items:
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says such slaughterhouses could compromise the state's efforts to adhere to clean-water and air quality regulations....
• U.S. Department of Agriculture approval is needed to ship horse meat overseas and Congress has blocked that approval process.
As a result -- as the editorial notes -- there are still a lot of questions about this law. Is it constitutional? Will Butcher et al. find an investor to build -- especially without the USDA participating in inspections? After all, one assumes investors will only build a slaughterhouse if they can sell the meat overseas...
I still can't believe the legislature rubber-stamped this dog. What were they thinking? Until proven otherwise, I'm assuming Ed Butcher has a stash of Polaroids tucked away somewhere of legislators in compromising positions...
I wasn't aware of this bill until now, but I think the Governor made a solid move with this veto of a bill that would allow teens to be charged as adults with vehicular manslaughter.
The whole move to treat good kids as kids and bad kids as adults offers some odd perverse incentives (or perhaps I should say, enhances some of the same perverse incentives that currently tie adulthood in the U.S. to drinking, smoking, and gambling). At the end of the day, no one wants to commit vehicular manslaughter. It is an act perpetrated through ignorance or recklessness, both of which are more understandable among 16-year-olds than among older individuals.
To the extent that we alter the statutes for minors, it seems to me that the smarter way to do it is to be more paternalistic and offer things like graduated driver's licenses.
Still, as with so many other small issues, making any move away from the "shoot any criminal we can" side of the justice spectrum is considered to be politically unpopular (although this is an area where I think the public is ahead of the politicians). So, kudos to the Governor for this move.
Ochenski and Peaks, and Valleys both have excellent posts up on the recent "revelation" that the Otter Creek coal tracts are worth $1.4 billion to the state in land-lease revenue, all of which would go to Montana's school system:
A new appraisal of vast state-owned coal reserves in southeastern Montana finds the state would reap $1.4 billion in royalty payments over the next four decades if it leases the property for mining.
Development of the Otter Creek tracts - more than a billion tons of coal co-owned by the state and Great Northern Properties - could open the door to a dramatic expansion of the region's coal industry. It also could facilitate construction of a long-delayed rail line, the Tongue River Railroad.
Ochenski has the history of the coal tracts, and you should read it to see how Montana ended up owning land with the coal. But the important detail is this: the state and Great Northern own "checkerboard" sections of land where the coal is. And it's Great Northern that's pushing development. And the report released on the potential revenue for the state was issued by Northwest Corp, a consultant to the mining and energy industry. That's really all you need to know to figure out that this latest round of news is probably orchestrated propaganda to pressure the state land board to lease the land for coal development.
And, of course, there's the ugly little detail that a rail line will have be put through the Tongue River valley. And Tongue River Valley ranchers don't want a rail line. And the Northern Cheyenne would essentially have to agree to development, too. Both of which means that a lot of political and financial capital will likely have to be spent to get this project going.
PPV opines that development of the Otter Creek tracts will happen, and under Democratic watch:
...It's not about if they get developed, or even where, or how, they get developed, but when. Ideally, these developments occur at a time that's late enough to capitalize on spiking energy prices and peaked demand in the market. One also needs to secure the Montana State Land Board, comprised of the state's top five elected officials who make most of the decisions on these things; the Democrats have done that. They also need a democratic operative running the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, which oversees oil and gas leases on state lands... someone like Director Democrat Mary Sexton... Check.
It's also about squeezing-out potential enviros or certain GOP legislators from gaining major leadership positions in the state legislature that could spearhead legislative efforts to curb or stall this growth... Check.
[Roy Brown (R-Billings) and Michele Reinhart (D-Missoula) nod bitterly in agreement as author types. Squeeze-out indeed.]
The when question also gets to Schweitzer's last term in office at sky-high approval ratings following a major splash performance at the DNC's national convention along with key political insiders being positioned in places like the White House and the U.S. Senate. Messina. Baucus. Tester... Check.
With all the checks lined-up, the political capital from this will be huge. Tapping those reserves at the right time allows Schweitzer, as well as the other Demo Land Board members-A.G. Steve Bullock, O.P.I. head Denise Juneau, Auditor Monica Lindeen, and S.O.S. Linda McCullough-to claim billions supporting public education, landmark energy development, and a vital piece of their political resume.
For Schweitzer, it's the final piece of everything he needs to go national-a shining emblematic example of the kind of domestic energy development national policy-makers and the industrial interests behind them want to see.
We will miss Jag.
I'm not as...optimistic?...as PPV. The Otter Creek tracts seem more politically useful undeveloped. State Democrats can blame "radical" enviros for blocking development, earning their "moderate" and "centrist" reputations, state Republicans can hold the tracts up as evidence that they need to be in office to develop that coal. Meanwhile, the Otter Creek coal is suspended like a pinata stuffed with one-point-four billion dollar bills over the heads of the eager, blindfolded electorate.
Agree to develop the tracts? You've got years of litigation featuring the trampled-on property rights of Montana ranchers to look forward to, as well as a future of diminishing returns on the coal as (hopefully) the nation greens and requires less of the filthy fuel. That ain't sexy. Tho' to be fair to the Good Guv, he'll be long gone when the sh*t hits the fan. Not so the Land Board members, tho...
Montana Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer ribbed Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin Friday for announcing at the last minute that she will not be attending a Sunday discussion of energy policy that the two governors were scheduled to lead at this weekend's meeting of the National Governors Association (NGA) in Washington.
"I don't know where she's going to be. You'll be stuck with me," Schweitzer told ABC News. "There will be no glamour, certainly no snappy dressing. I brought my best two pairs of jeans. There's a little bit of a horse s**t stain by the knee. But I've been washing that stuff out."
