Montana press no engine of speed, efficiency or thoroughness

by: Montana Cowgirl

Tue May 25, 2010 at 17:11:24 PM MST

For example, when the press "broke" the story about Max Baucus having recommended to the White House that they hire his secret paramour for a job at the Department of Justice, they were reporting something that had been known for probably a good year or so by just about everyone in state politics, by all the writers, all the editors, all the pols.  The same thing was true of the John Morrison affair. Morrison's extracurricular activities and excessive hormones were well known, but for a long time the press just didn't want to report it and had it not been for some crafty work on the party of pro-Tester partisans to keep the story bubbling on blogs and in mailings, it might well have gone unreported until the general election, which would have meant humiliation and (probably) defeat for Dems had Morrison won the primary.  And when Denny Rehberg got drunk and fell off his horse in Kazakhstan back a few years ago, it was ages before the Montana press felt it necessary to report it, even though the story was well known around town.  In fact, it was not until the story appeared in the Washington Post much later that the Helena IR and other esteemed media institutions considered that it might be news at all. And to this day, it appears that not a single writer can be bothered to get Denny Rehberg or Dustin Frost on the record to confirm whether they have submitted, or plan to submit, work comp claims (i.e., millions of dollars of socialized reimbursement) for Denny's white-trash binge-boating wreck injuries. Whether, in all of these cases, it is the writer or editor's fault, I don't really know.

At any rate, my favorite one of these is the Bozeman prostitution ring, and it's supposed connection to a high ranking political official.  This story, mind you, was broadcast on ABC's Nightline, and yet it was virtually a complete censorship job here in Montana.  A small story, buried in the paper, off topic, with no subsequent investigation, was pretty much all we got.  

Last year, Nightline reported that the DOJ was investigating the involvement of political figures in a Bozeman prostitution ring.  (As clients and not as pimps, we should pray.) You'd think Nightline's mention of such a thing, in and of itself, would be news here.  

For some unexplained reason, the DOJ settled for nailing a woman who was the mistress of Bill Martel (as in Martel Stadium where the Bobcats play). Martel had been sleeping with her and supporting her, with a car, money for her children's school, medical care, etc.  Then he got tired of her, so he stopped paying her and kicked her out. She went broke, and began demanding from Martel that he continue funding essentials like her kids' medical care which he had been paying for. For this, she was arrested for extortion.  She moved to Vegas, and has never talked to a reporter.  Martel got off free, of course.

The extortion part was half-assedly reported in the Montana papers. What was never examined at all was the bigger question: what was this prostitution ring, and what politicians were suspected of being involved in it?

It gets better.  There was no investigative followup by the Montana press, no phone calls to the US Attorney's office or snooping around for some answers, or even editorials or op-eds asking why there were no answers, and what the initial suspicion about a politician might have been.    Nor did anyone ever get an interview with the woman's attorney, who gave a long and impassioned speech in court explaining how his client was a scapegoat for the bigger game that the DOJ tried and failed to catch.  This attorney, it should be noted, fingered Max Baucus in the courtroom as the target of the DOJ investigation (transcript here). Since it was never exactly clear whether the attorney had anything to back it up, the press did not report on the attorney's comments in the courtroom. Perhaps that was the right call. It's a tough one.  (My bet has always been that it was Rehberg. He is super-close with Martel, and, as we know, likes to party and, from what I am told, likes to clean the plumbing every so often.  Max is a little long in the tooth for high-priced call girls, plus he seems to prefer females who work in his office.)

Nevertheless, there is a story here, full of sex,  intrigue, and politics. What could be better?! At a minimum, why not look into what the hell Bill Mercer was looking for? The Montana press, in its chronic state of laziness and apathy, might need some help in looking into it. Perhaps the Billings Gazette should contract out to Left in the West for some investigative journalism.

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.

Tester's Public Online Information Act

by: Matt Singer

Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:12:34 AM MST

The Senator had a brief conference call this morning to outline the bill and take questions. I asked about the search functionality required and also about the ability to link back to specific pages of specific documents, embed files in other websites, etc. Jon didn't go into that. I can attest to the fact that Jon Tester is a pretty sharp guy, but a geek he is not.

I've had a chance to read over the bill. The language appears to me to be strong in terms of requiring easy access by people and also taking advantage of newer technologies.

It also sounded like the text of this bill is currently stronger than companion legislation in the House, in large part because it includes disclosure of public contracts and grants. So good for our Senator on that front.

Rehberg Takes Lead in Fighting Imaginary Land Grab

by: Matt Singer

Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:45:36 PM MST

Even better -- Rehberg's legislation only removes the President's power to designate monuments in Montana. What's good for the goose is good for the fucking goose. What the hell is a gander anyway?

But the best part is that this is all stupid chest-beating. Two months ago, Jon Tester asked Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, a man whose family has lived in Colorado and New Mexico since before Independence. Salazar understands what it means to be a Westerner. That may explain why he told Senator Tester that he and the Administration have no plans to move forward on monument designation in Montana.

Maybe Congressman Rehberg should go find some other non-issues to waste his time and our money working on.

Congressman Deficit Redink Freaking Out About Projected 2013 Shortfall

by: Matt Singer

Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 16:02:08 PM MST

The health reform bill that I voted against included $5 billion for a temporary high risk pool for people with preexisting conditions.  That money was supposed to last through the 2014.  But this money is expected to run out by 2012.

Meanwhile, an attempt to verify Congressman Rehberg's claims results in one story...in the Clark Fork Chronicle...with a byline from...Jed Link, Rehberg's communications staffer.

Hmmmmmmm.....

Regardless, I don't think any of us are eager about there being a shortfall in those funds, but it does seem like it would be hard to know if the shortfall will happen before it is clear how many states are going to use them. And I'm not sure that we'd be better off eliminating high risk pools.

But forget about that. I'm just curious what Rehberg has done in the past ten years about the deficit other than basically create it by voting for tax cuts for rich people (or, as Rehberg calls them, his peers), two wars, or an unfunded prescription drug benefit.

GOP Jumps Health Care Shark

by: Matt Singer

Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:55:45 AM MST

But this doesn't hold a candle to Nevada, where the frontrunner against Harry Reid wants to replace fee-for-service medicine with chicken for service medicine. Crazy.

Tackling Demand and Deficits

by: Matt Singer

Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 08:41:48 AM MST

We even have good data on what forms of government spending trigger the most aggregate demand -- aid to state and local government (in large part by preventing additional rounds of layoffs), etc. The main complaint, the one the GOP is making, is that this stuff racks up the deficit. The part of me that has functioning memory thinks they're the worst pack of hypocrites I've ever met. The part of me that studied economics thinks that concerns over the short-term deficit are overhyped. The part of me that works in politics thinks that maybe we need to figure out something about this.

But here's the other thing. We know there are government expenditures and revenues that have far weaker effects on aggregate demand, like top marginal tax rates, the estate tax, and a lot of military spending. Essentially, we can offset stimulus spending with changes in these areas, stay closer to deficit neutral, and still induce more aggregate demand, increasing output and decreasing unemployment.

Steve Bullock Writes a Letter

by: Matt Singer

Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:17:19 AM MST

Some of my favorite excerpts:

Like you, I take seriously my oath of office to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana," as well as to "discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

[...]

I have analyzed these claims as I analyze constitutional challenges to our own laws, with the understanding that overturning the constitutional judgment of a popularly elected legislature grave matter in a constitutional democracy.

Although your letter is short on legal specifics [...] [emphasis added]

[...]

As Justice Scalia explained in Raich, "[w]here necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." Id. at 35 (Scalia, concurring).

[...]

The lawsuit you urge me to join does claim that States participating in the federal Medicaid program must provide coverage, but also concedes that States may "avoid the Act's requirements" by "drop[ping] out of the Medicaid program." Florida v. Sebelius, Complt. fl 40. Although this choice would leave millions of people uninsured, it is a choice any of the States may make if they disapprove of how Congress wants federal Medicaid funds spent, and this choice is consistent with the Tenth Amendment. See New York v. United States. 505 U.S. 144 (ree2).

The lawsuit also presents serious standing and ripeness issues, given that it appears to be filed based more on the timing of the November 2010 elections than the date in2014 when individuals and states might first be subject to the Act's requirements.

Therefore, I have concluded that once you take the politics out of these issues, there is no credible constitutional claim. So, like nearly three-quarters of my Democratic and Republican colleagues in state Attorney General offices across the country, I have not joined the lawsuit. We are not alone in our bipartisan opposition to politicizing the Constitution and the courts in this way. Eighteen of your Republican counterparts in the United States Senate sponsored a similar health insurance reform bill in 1993, see 5.1770,103rd Cong. (1993), and I do not doubt their fidelity to their constitutional oath. Lawyers and constitutional scholars across the political spectrum have determined, as President Reagan's former Solicitor General Charles Fried has said, that the lawsuit is "simply a political ploy" without legal merit.

As legislators, you understand as much as any citizen the importance of resolving our heartfelt policy differences through the democratic process. Montana's decision not to join these lawsuits will not change the outcome if, contrary to nearly a century of precedent, the Supreme Court takes the surprising step of striking down this law and taking the country back to the days when the farm bill and social security were constitutionally suspect. Most importantly, however, Montana's decision not to join these lawsuits leaves these critical questions of national policy in the hands of "We the People" and our elected representatives, where these decisions belong.

Roy Brown Has His Facts Wrong on Health Reform

by: Matt Singer

Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 16:49:57 PM MST

KULR-8 has the Billings Senator on video. In that clip, he makes two notable arguments, both of which are patently false:

1. First, that every single person in this country buy a product. There are huge classes of people not required to buy any product. Individuals insured through their employer or by another government program (including Medicaid, which will be available to all low-income Americans by the time the individual mandate kicks in) or for whom the purchase would represent a financial hardship are exempt from the mandate. In other words, the tax for not having insurance only applies to working Americans who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and choose to remain uninsured. They pay an extra tax in exchange for having access to the insurance regulations and protections, like the end of pre-existing condition discrimination, available under the bill to all Americans.
2. If you don't buy insurance you get fined and if you don't get fined you go to jail. Actually the law explicitly prevents people from being jailed:

   The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent.

   Enforcement would occur through the holding of tax refunds or other mechanisms presumably in the meantime.

Montanans Helped by Health Insurance Reform

by: Matt Singer

Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 13:11:50 PM MST

I've heard other stories, mostly about young adults eligible to get on to their parents insurance again, sometimes at a very crucial period of their lives.

I find these stories shocking, though, since my understanding was that only BCBS's CEO would benefit under this bill. Maybe I've been misinformed.

No Excuses and No Shortcuts: A Response to Lawrence Lessig

by: Matt Singer

Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 21:23:58 PM MST

The presentation he gave at "Rebooting" was appropriately titled "<ctrl><alt><del>," and is available on his website for viewing. I heartily recommend it. If you haven't had the pleasure to watch Lessig present (calling it speaking is misleading), you're missing out.

The presentation is at turns brilliant and maddening, depressing in its overview of the bad decisions made by Congress when no one is looking. The problem with government, he argues, is that corporate power reins. It reins because corporations spend huge amounts of money on lobbying; corporate PACs spend huge amounts of money on campaigns; and, under Citizens United, what few restrictions remained until recently are now gone.

The solution, then, is public financing of elections and a a Constitutional Amendment requiring Congress to institute public financing and empowering Congress broadly to limit corrupting expenditures.

But the problem is both larger and smaller than Lessig indicates and the solution is incomplete. As a result, I worry that it offers false hope to progressives frustrated by the fundamental difficulty of change.

More after the jump.

Libby and Equal Playing Field: This is Controversial?!?!?!?

by: Matt Singer

Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 13:17:39 PM MST

Michael Jamison writes:

If the nation's new health care bill has a hometown, it must be Libby, Mont., and if it has a face, it must be the face of Red Busby.

[...]

He's on a fixed income now, unable to work, and after basic expenses lives on less than $200 per month. Much of Busby's health care is paid for by W.R. Grace and Co. - the mining outfit that left this town riddled with asbestos - "but I have fears that they will discontinue my coverage when they have gotten out of bankruptcy."

Meanwhile, Senator Baucus is under fire for talking about the bill as a way of correcting an upward redistribution of wealth, which is basically true. Prior to the bill, there were 3 major sets of subsidies for health insurance in this country:

• The public systems like the Medicare, VA, and IHS that target certain segments of the population.
• Subsidized coverage or full coverage for certain classes of low-income people -- SCHIP, Medicaid, etc.
• The employer tax exclusion that really applies to the middle-class and up.

Health Reform Will Be a Political Winner for Democrats

by: Matt Singer

Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:25:57 PM MST

But there's something else interesting about all of this, which is that the issue that Republicans were planning on turning into Obama's Waterloo is in the process of kicking them in the ass. Polls numbers are already quickly moving in favor of the bill and its champions. Here's why:

• An Actual Landmark Achievement. In the words of Joe Biden, this is a big fucking deal. Literally. And no matter how painful the compromises are, this is a boost for the progressive base that feels it has waited a year to see the fruits of victory here they are.
• The Right Can't Get More Mobilized. And, at some point, I think the crazy train has to lose a little bit of steam. That much anger has to result in heart attacks or something, right?
• Moderates May Still be Uneasy with Dems, but They Don't Want a Tea Party Majority. The behavior of Republicans in the past week and its on-going operations of running on repeal of the bill, suing to stop its implementation, etc., doesn't look good. No one wants a bunch of children running the Congress.

Cost Controls in the Health Care Bill

by: Matt Singer

Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:35:35 AM MST

There's a bunch of other stuff, though, and Ezra walks through the five most proimising. These changes include Medicare programs to reform payment systems away from fee-for-service. If it works, private insurance will be under fairly significant pressure to follow suit, in large part because the transparency under the exchanges will strengthen competition while the regulations will protect consumers from fake insurance.

The only public option that ever scored significant savings was the one tied to Medicare. That one died way back before the full House moved to a vote. It's still a good idea, but it is only one of many.

And the bottom-line is that the bulk of the other ideas to contain costs are in this bill. Comparative effectiveness, MedPAC, capping the subsidies for the employer-based system, payment reform, etc. There's a whole lot of folks who disagree that these will lower costs in the long-term, but they're every bit as proven and sound of ideas as the public option when it comes to long-term cost containment.

Jay and others are probably offended that I'm referring to their criticisms on this front and disregarding research and science. Fine. I'm gonna call that one like I see it. The President didn't fight the House on the excise tax and payment reform because the issues were political winners in the short term. He did it because they're among the most likely ways to actually contain costs in this country.

Health Reform on Track for Passage

by: Matt Singer

Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:39:00 AM MST

From everything I can tell, the pieces are set and a vote in the next 4-5 days on comprehensive federal health reform is likely to be successful. Ezra has a good run down of the particulars of the bill:

Legislation that covers 32 million people. A world in which 95 percent of all non-elderly, legal residents have health-care coverage. An end to insurers rescinding coverage for the sick, or discriminating based on preexisting conditions, or spending 30 cents of each premium dollar on things that aren't medical care. Exchanges where insurers who want to jack up premiums will have to publicly explain their reason, where regulators will be able to toss them out based on bad behavior, and where consumers will be able to publicly rate them. Hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help lower-income Americans afford health-care insurance. The final closure of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit's "doughnut hole."

But you also get the single most ambitious effort the government has ever made to control costs in the health-care sector. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill cuts deficits by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and up to $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years.

There are some people out there pretty furious about this legislation. I hear talk that it doesn't really control costs (still haven't figured out how comparative effectiveness research and bundling aren't important parts of controlling costs) or that it forces people to buy terrible insurance (the same terrible insurance that it monumentally improves and that so many of us currently fight like hell to hold on to despite rate hikes).

Anyways, I've been working off-and-on on federal health care reform since late '06. This just feels damn good. One more vote to go in the House. One more in the Senate. A signature from the President.

That's how history is made.

US Chamber to Step Up Fight Against Banking Reform in Montana

by: Matt Singer

Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:40:46 AM MST

The Hill article portrays this as potentially being about seeking some changes to the bill. Frankly, a lot of this shit is in the weeds and well outside my areas of expertise, but my sense also is that here, as in healthcare, the Chamber isn't playing to amend or fix. They're playing to kill because a small number of their members care deeply about this sector of the economy.

Wall Street is obscenely out of hand, especially for a sector of the economy that fundamentally doesn't do anything. We don't need financial innovation. We need fucking banks that work. More of those, please.

Health Reform Enters Final Stretch, Good Impacts for Montana

by: Matt Singer

Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:43:35 AM MST

Health care reform is entering the final stretch in Congress. All sorts of stories will be written in the next few days, but the bottom line is that the Congress is about to pass the most significant economic justice legislation in 40 years and the most fundamental rewrite of our social contract since the New Deal and Social Security.

Like Social Security, Medicare, and, well, everything, this bill is a process, not an end-point. But the expansions of Medicaid, the creation of health insurance exchanges paired with meaningful regulation to make insurance function more like a regulated utility than the ferocious beast it has become, and the subsidies to make insurance affordable are all huge immediate gains for low- and middle-income Americans.

Combine all of those moves with the strong attempts to control costs -- bundling of prices, comparative effectiveness research, etc. -- and we've got something that just may keep people insured for the long term while also being the single biggest piece of deficit reduction legislation passed in the history of this country.

Damn. I know there are a lot of complaints out there, but we stand at a major turning point of American history. The future will build upon this point in a few ways:

• Creation of a public option. Count me skeptical that we'll get it in this bill. But the public option is an easier thing to pass in the future than the framework in which it would live and, over the long-term, it is important, but nearly as important as the insurance market regulations and subsidies that will make insurance fair and affordable. We can get back to this and probably in better form than the compromised version we'd get today.
• State experimentation. One of the amendments that both Ron Wyden and Bernie Sanders helped insert allows states to take the revenue streams under the bill and implement alternate models of reform, so, yes, California, New York, or even Montana could pass, for example, a single-payer plan and use the federal funds to make it happen.
• Implementation of further cost control. This last piece will be the hardest, but it may prove the best. Focusing especially on bundling and comparative effectiveness research, which both create the opportunity to cut costs while increasing quality, we may be able to significantly restrain health care spending while improving health outcomes.

Kaiser to Depart Baucus Operation, Lewis Moving Up

by: Matt Singer

Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 14:57:21 PM MST

John Lewis is moving up from Deputy State Director to State Director. I'm not sure yet if other shuffling will occur.

Barrett and I have butted heads a few times over the years, but he's a sharp operator. It really is a loss for that office. Kaiser, for example, posted and engaged in conversation here (publicly, under his own name, not the most common thing) for quite some time before concluding that suffering the slings and arrows wasn't really helping him do his job.

Hilltop Strategies, the firm he's joining, is gaining a hell of a team member.  

Unsubscribed from Rehberg's Constituent List 6 Times in the Past Week

by: Matt Singer

Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:48:09 AM MST

Like I said, I'm not sure who's doing this and I can't really point the finger at the Congressman's office. It would take an amount of work I'm not interested in undertaking to get to the bottom of this, especially since it is easy enough to maintain a subscription through other means.

Regardless, this sort of crap -- the inclination to stop debate by cutting off critical voices -- bothers me in most forums (which is one reason why I've allowed comments here to become so absurd at times), but it is especially reprehensible in communication media paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Rehberg Decries Stimulus as "Failed" While Touring Jobs Project Funded with Stimulus Dollars

by: Matt Singer

Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 10:48:49 AM MST

Number one suggestion..stop spending money on failed stimulus. Tax relief!!

Beyond that, the spending in the stimulus didn't fail, unless our Congressman is advocating for cutting short COBRA subsidies or unemployment insurance. Hilariously, Congressman Rehberg tweeted this yesterday, around the same time he was touring the stimulus-funded Northern Hotel renovations:

When the two reached Nelson's basement office, Rehberg's work began. The congressman inquired about what the government could do for the Northern, promising to have a staffer look for grant options and Department of Energy assistance.

A year ago, by cooperating with the city of Billings, the Northern was able to sell $20 million in tax-free "stimulus bonds" to pay for the hotel's remodeling. Investors like the government-backed, tax-free bonds, which were made possible through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Even worse, our Congressman is apparently aware that he's full of it:

In an interview with The Billings Gazette editorial board Tuesday, Rehberg, who opposed the ARRA and is advocating a shift toward tax cuts, said the construction projects funded by the ARRA had merit....

And keep in mind when Rehberg rails about government spending that his office repeatedly calls for higher spending on numerous programs. This guy is absolutely all over the map.