Well, maybe there should be a tax!

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:58:34 AM MST

First off, CI-105. The ballot language:

There is no existing state or local tax on transactions that sell or transfer real property in Montana. CI-105 amends the Montana Constitution to prohibit state or local governments from imposing any new tax on transactions that sell or transfer real property, such as residential homes, apartments, condominiums, townhouses, farms, ranches, land, and commercial property, after January 1, 2010.

Okay, so it's a ballot initiative that would overturn a tax that, erm, doesn't actually exist.

According to Banks, the backers of the initiative are the Montana Association of Realtors, represented by...Chuck Denowh! Who has a well-heeled history of setting up astroturf organizations for corporate initiatives! So...you know...what's the catch to this thing?

{Helena City Commissioner} Paul Cartwright says CI-105 is a scam from the National Association of Realtors. He also claims N.A.R. dumped over $1 million into Montana to get this initiative passed. "Back in my day we used to call these outside agitators," Cartwright added.

Then Cartwright went on to claim, "Perhaps the N.A.R. is bankrolling David and Charles Koch." Cartwright claims the Koch brothers own a 250,000 acre matador ranch outside Dillon. He says CI-105 would help landowners like the Koch's much more than it would the average Montanan.

"Is the National Association of Realtors in it to help me, or in it to help the Koch brothers?" Cartwright asked. "If you look around the table and can't see who the sucker is, it would be you," Cartwright said as he told the commission he will be voting against CI-105.

Helena Mayor, Jim Smith, also spoke out and said he didn't understand the logic behind this initiative either.

So...what's going on here? Is this a reaction to a provision in the health care bill that would slap a 3.8-percent tax on high-end real-estate sales? Or real-estate transfer taxes in other states? Whichever, it's true what Cartwright says, that more expensive homes will incur more tax penalty under such a system - if it were ever to be implemented in the state.

But...why not impose a real-estate transfer tax on high-end hobby houses? You know the kind - the ones with a gajillion acres and obstructing our access to rivers and wilderness areas. What a great idea!

So here's what we do. First, vote down CI-105. Then, in the legislature, pass a real-estate transaction tax on Montana's super-deluxe McMansions.

Republicans Out-Source Party Role to Rent-a-Groups

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 17:12:58 PM MST

Republicans have largely relinquished the party duties to a person named Chuck Denowh.  Denowh is a long-time right-wing Montana operative who has, over time, opened a series of rent-a-front organizations: PACs, astroturf issue groups, incidental ballot committees,  and other shell entities designed to appear like legitimate grassroots issue groups.  

Denowh, an urbane-looking fellow who runs around the Capitol in a suit and tie fighting his good fight, was among the crew of young geniuses that took the Republican Party from ruling status 6 years ago to the bottom of the toilet today. He forms these "issue" groups working in concert with other RAWNJs like former Representative Jon Sinrud (R-Belgrade), the Chamber, the Realtors, etc., He then sends mailings out in targeted races, decrying democrats as dangerous liberals, radicals, anti-business, radical environmentalists, and the usual minimalist attacks that rile up the ignorant, case-of-Coors-a-day, semi-literate mouth breathers that constitute the Montana far-right wing.  He cooks the spin right into the groups' names with lables like "Better Government PAC" or "Growth PAC" and other such innocuous names.  Then he raises cash from hard-core conservative donors, and moves the money to this PAC or the other (legally it appears).

The front-group mailer is a tactic that Republicans have long used. Dems seem to have had less success with it.  Here's how it works: A mailing shows up saying that "Democrat Candidate X supports the Radical Terrorist Agenda", or "Candidate X Voted For the Biggest Tax Increase In History" or "If You Can't Find A Job, Thank Candidate X for Shutting Down the Mill With Radical Environmental Regulation."  And there is a dubious citation in small print at the bottom with reference to some legislation that had nothing to do with anything, and a disclaimer that says "Paid for By Montanans for a Stronger Society" or "Montanans for More Jobs."  In the Flathead, a bunch of wing-nuts bounced Frank Sweeney from the City Council using these tactics.  In fact about nearly $40k was spent on the effort, a good third of it coming from Denowh's operation.

The state Republican Party used to do this, until the Republican brand went down the toilet with names like Martz, Bush, Brad Johnson, Greg Barkus, Jeff Krauss and many other debilitating figures who showed complete ineptitude.  Now a mailer that says "paid for by Republicans" loses its luster. This season, the right-wing hotheads are at an all time high blood-pressure now that we have a black president, and you will no doubt see many Denowh mailers to get the wingnuts to the polls.  We will see if they do the job.

Takings Initiative Backburnered

by: Matt Singer

Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 14:57:59 PM MST

For more details on how this initiative could have hosed the state to the tune of $5 billion, check out this blast from the past.

Chuck Deficit's Takings Initiative and Its Cost to Montana: $500 million or $5 billion?

by: Matt Singer

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 15:38:18 PM MST

Near as I can tell, the initiative is very similar to 2006 effort that mobilized an amazing amount of dishonesty and fraud, eventually being thrown off the ballot.

Already, Montanans ought to be wary supporting this new version. The fiscal note headlines that the anticipated cost of the bill is $600 million over six years, but consider the reasoning that leads to that number and realize just how conservative it is. The Governor's Budget office used Washington State's estimates of a similar measure and Oregon's actually filed claims under the initiative to determine the price.

In Oregon, actual claims filed came to $19.8 billion (with a b). In Washington, estimated claims came to $8.15 billion. Adjusting the Oregon figure for population, the budget director says that a similar program in Montana would result in over $5 billion in claims. Adjusting the Washington figure, we still end up with over $1 billion in claims. So how do we end up with a dollar figure of just $600 million? The following sentence explains:

Using the comparison to the analysis done for the Washington initiative and taking into account the uncertainties that exist because of the differences between the Montana and Washington initiatives; a 50% discount has been applied to this analysis.

But let's think about this again, the adjustment in cost from Washington State is done based on the populations of Washington and Montana. It fails to adjust for the fact that the initiative language in Montana is actually broader than the initiative language in Washington. It also ignores the fact that Montana has a hell of a lot more land than Washington State. We may have fewer people, but I'm not sure we have significantly fewer assets in the state (would love to hear otherwise).

In other words, the anticipated $600 million price tag is an optimistic interpretation of an optimistic interpretation of an optimistic interpretation. The Governor's office appears to be bending over backwards here to avoid criticism of cooking the books for political purposes. That's all well and good, but Montanans need to be aware that this initiative could easily destroy Montana's fiscal situation -- something already seriously threatened by the economic slowdown.

Pony up for Paul!

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 15:39:08 PM MST

Not in our yard, folks! Five dollars is enough to show you care!

Chuck Denowh Jumping Into Democratic Primaries

by: Matt Singer

Tue May 27, 2008 at 20:49:36 PM MST

If this was a good faith effort, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And hell, I don't really know a thing about Judy Stang. But Stewart and Denowh getting involved in Democratic primary politics is even stranger than me getting involved in a Republican primary.

It's dirty as hell -- and a bad sign of things to come this year. Apparently, dirty tricks will be the name of the game.

MT GOP: Denowh Out, Wilcox In

by: Matt Singer

Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 15:04:39 PM MST

Wilcox, who is 24 and grew up in Miles City, said he anticipates no major changes after he becomes the executive.

“The voters out there aren’t disagreeing with the Republican philosophy,” he said, adding that “you always have to analyze where you’ve been and where you are.”