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.
Reporters have attempted to call him "a conservative activist". Really!? I find no record of any cause he is active in (other than himself.)
Greenwood is well known in the state's political circles all right--as the guy that got caught trying to walk out the door with an illegal, secret $7,000 golden parachute from the State of Montana after his former patron Brad Johnson was voted out of office after serving only one term (h/t.) So much for responsible budgeting!
Oddly, he said he doesn't plan to give up his own campaign for legislature. Can you say "conflict of interest"? He now has free reign to raid the GOP cookie jar to help his own race.
Hilariously, his campaign theme is "Restoring Responsibility to Government."
We're about to be able to field a full baseball team. Mark French, a rancher and clinical laboratory scientist from Paradise, filed as a Republican and hit Rehberg pretty hard for supporting too much government spending and other forms of big government like the PATRIOT Act. It looks like we may have a real libertarian-style challenger here.
Rehberg's office hilariously emphasized Rehberg's fiscal discipline in response.
So far, French is saying he won't actively raise money. A.J. Ottjen is also having a tough time getting traction, but it is increasingly clear that this is a difficult environment for incumbents.
All aboard. Roger Koopman, the former Bozeman-area legislator who left the legislature after his liberty tree was pruned too often, is launching yet another organization aimed at destroying the government (Roger had something like a half dozen PACs operating in 2008).
"Democrats don't negotiate their basic principles, and Republicans, depending on the Republican, often do. The more liberal leaning Republicans do," Koopman, executive director of the new group, said Thursday.
Hahahahahahaha. I think Mark T's head just exploded. Probably Harry Reid's, too, for a different reason.
The questionnaire being circulated by the Alliance is a doozy. 51 litmus test questions. I don't know which one to highlight, but the results of the questionnaire would be absolutely fascinating to read.
Roger Koopman: Building a Smaller Tent
The good news for sane Republicans (which used to number quite a few) is that some people are pushing back. Senator Dave Lewis, who fits into the "conservative but not crazy" corner of the modern GOP matrix, had this to say to the Chronicle:
One potential alliance target, Sen. Dave Lewis, R-Helena, said he threw out the questionnaire shortly after reading it Thursday. He called it "one of those when did you stop beating your wife" questionnaires.
"Look, I work very hard to try to represent six counties, and Roger can take his shot," Lewis said. "I don't believe in tax increases. I balance the budget by cutting spending. I'm pro-life, but I couldn't answer the questionnaire, so I tossed it. If Roger wants to get someone to run against me, go for it, and we'll have a primary. I've got a 10-year voting record in the Legislature. If he has any questions, he can take a look."
Sad that we'd have to come to Dave Lewis's defense. He really is a run of the mill conservative Republican. He's just not looking to move to a government with only one agency comprised of morality police. So he is being targeted for a primary.
Mark my words, though, if Roger Koopman succeeds in destroying the last vestiges of the reasonable conservative movement, the Republican Party is in deep shit. 35% of the population is not enough to win governing majorities in this state.
Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services.
The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54 percent to 46 percent ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits.
Turnout was over 60% and voters in initiative-heavy Oregon hadn't passed a tax hike in close to 80 years...so this vote is huge.
The message out of Oregon, like the message out of Massachusetts, is resonating: Voters are in a populist mood right now -- not an anti-government one, necessarily, but a populist one nevertheless. The progressive brand of populism that resonated with Oregonians this month is slightly different than the one that rang true in Massachusetts. Yet the message is just as clear.
The real question now is whether DC will listen, or if instead it will continue to cling to its common wisdom.
Additionally, let me vouch for the Oregonians behind this campaign. Kevin Looper is hella smart and one of the best field minds in the country. From what I can tell, their campaign pulled out the stops. They registered and re-registered voters, knocked hundreds of thousands of doors, and made something like a million phone calls.
You want to win? Hone your messaging, mobilize your base, and even in a recession, we can hike taxes on the rich to pay for necessary services.
Good news for Montana. The slightly-less-insane-than-declaring-corporations-to-be-people initiative put forward by United Property Owners of MontanaChuck Denowh is probably not headed for the ballot any more. Chuck Denowh says the complex issues deserves a legislative look before it heads to voters. That strikes me as politicese for "we ain't got no money or volunteers" or "turns out the damn thing doesn't poll that well."
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.
Those aren't the sort of fundraising totals you want to see. Dennis McDonald recently announced staff expansion, but his latest fundraising numbers make that seem like a questionable decision:
Column A This Period
Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
6. Net Contributions (other than loans)
(a) Total Contributions (other than loans)
17291.09
104164.95
(b) Total Contribution Refunds
40.00
40.00
(c) Net Contributions (6(a) - 6(b))
17251.09
104124.95
7. Net Operating Expenditures
(a) Total Operating Expenditures
32996.48
87004.79
(b) Total Offsets to Operating Expenditures
0.00
0.00
(c) Net Operating Expenditures
32996.48
87004.79
8. Cash on Hand at Close of Reporting Period
18120.16
Tyler Gernant hasn't reported yet. I don't believe Dennis Rehberg has either.
I really can't believe I overlooked this, but as a friend pointed out, 13-2-221 requires that county agencies that provide public assistance or assist individuals with disabilities also provide voter registration services. This is an outgrowth of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (better known as motor voter). Relevant provisions of the federal law are available here.
The NVRA actually opens with the following language:
The Congress finds that -
(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;
(2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right;
This language is probably not completely enforceable, but I think Montana county governments should probably give the NVRA a read and take it seriously. Missouri just got sued for ignoring it and lost big time.
Keila Szpaller has shared Jean Curtiss's full comments regarding polling place closures. They end far more humorously than they open and I recommend checking them out for yourself.
Commissioner Curtiss goes out of her way to complain that a proposal in the 2009 legislative session to pilot vote-by-mail elections didn't make it out of committee. She doesn't say why it didn't come out of committee. On a tie vote, a number of legislators were concerned by the refusal of county governments to support amendments advanced by voting groups. Additionally, American Indian legislators strongly opposed the measure because of honest concerns regarding postal systems on Montana reservations.
Having government officials take so little responsibility and point the finger at constituents so much is extremely frustrating.
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?
jhwygirl has written another incredible post on the proposed polling place consolidations in Missoula County. My colleagues at Forward Montana have done an outstanding job raising awareness on this issue -- even working with some sharp young conservatives with whom we share an interest in voting rights.
But I think jhwygirl does a nice job summarizing just why the county needs to do a more serious job of considering the concerns being raised:
Having only one polling station in the Rattlesnake is nuts. Even nuttier is closing Prescott (at the bottom of the hill) and leaving the Rattlesnake School up the hill. Have everyone driving up the hill and back? From a transportation point of view it makes absolutely no sense.
There's a reason we want public input on these proposals: people are smart; getting their input will strengthen the proposal.
As both jhwygirl and my colleagues have noted, very few of us have any objection to precinct consolidation. Cold Springs Elementary has been ripe for precinct consolidation for years, in my estimation. So has Hellgate Elementary. Consider that the consolidations at Cold Springs will cut the number of election judges needed at a single polling location by more than 50%.
Then consider that the courthouse polling location (which is being slated for closure in part because so many people go there thinking they can vote) and the University Center get so busy in Presidential election years that the county has slated 10 election judges to staff each location (single precincts only statutorily need 3).
Bottom-line -- this proposal needs a lot of work. Forward Montana told the county months ago that we were open to precinct consolidation (Missoula County currently has 40 more precincts than Yellowstone County, which is bigger geographically and population wise) precisely to help the county save money and reduce the number of election judges needed to run an election.
Sadly, county leadership has decided to respond to criticism by basically closing up, defending the proposal come hell or highwater, and indicating that the decision is already done. That isn't being well-received by the people I know in this county.
The good news here is also that there is probably a fairly straightforward way to proceed -- make the precinct consolidations that don't affect polling locations. Leave the polling locations for now. It is easy enough to merge them later after a more public process. The county will start reaping savings immediately and those of us concerned about negative repercussions of ill-considered moves will probably stop our gnashing of teeth.
Wow. Just got this via email, the rather incredible fiscal note for Chuck Denowh's I-162, the takings initiative that is going to takings your money to give it to railroads and other big landowners.
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.
In other words, due to uncertainty, we're going to risk underestimating the cost of this initiative by as much as $600 million!
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.
By now, most anyone who's been paying attention has seen that the 'conservatism' wing of the Republican party is threatening primary against any Republican candidate who doesn't serve the conservative cause (read Tea Party). The RNC has floated a list of 10 'principles', of which any candidate must support at least 8, or face the wrath of the Republican base. A decent Montana discussion of that list is at Missoulapolis. This strategy for ensuring party purity is quite obviously called the "litmus test". It generally speaking works best with those who value the authority of central control, or fear its absence, and it's a small wonder why the Republican base is eating it up.
The lesson is that, for some, ideological purity, or at least the appearance of it, is very safe and desired.
As the Independent is covering, things are getting a bit hot in Ward 2 in Missoula, where incumbent councilman is coming shockingly close to implying he's got the backing of popular Missoula Mayor John Engen.
The local Dems have responded by filing a complaint with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices over Hendrickson's practice, since Engen has fully endorsed Roy Houseman (who, I should note, is a friend and an all-around badass).
I'm of 2 minds on this:
What Hendrickson is doing is really quite unacceptable. It definitely skirts ethical lines to imply endorsements you don't have and goes even further when you imply that someone supporting your opponent actually prefers you. So I'm certainly not defending Hendrickson's behavior. That being said...
The Commission of Political Practices is a quasi-judicial body that should have limited power to evaluate truth claims in political campaigns. I don't think that there should be legally empowered bodies that gain the power to factcheck campaign ads. In fact, I find that pretty horrifying.
The Democrats who have filed this complaint are friends, pretty good friends in fact. That said, I'm not a fan -- and I hope they reconsider. This act has real 1st Amendment consequences.
All that being said, the Commissioner and the courts should protect the 1st Amendment. And John Hendrickson shouldn't willfully mislead voters.
Update: (from Jay) Keila Spitzer has a post up about this, too, with quotes from Hendrickson and council member, Jason Weiner...
There's a third candidate in the race for Congress, a Blackfoot woman named Melinda Gopher. I don't know much about her, but she has written a couple entries at Huffington Post.
Apparently, Tyler Gernant had the same reaction I did to Dennis McDonald's news release from yesterday and Dennis Rehberg's response:
"One Dennis is demanding an apology from the other Dennis for having a couple of drinks," Gernant wrote in a written statement. "The other Dennis turns around and releases his attack dogs on Dennis for being a mob lawyer from California. This kind of petty political posturing does nothing to help the 158,000 Montanans currently without health insurance."
It is sad that the most mature response here comes from the youngest candidate in the race.
I should also note, strangely, that I received another copy of Dennis's original completely over-the-top email this morning at 5:04 AM. It still contains the same typos and the same random email from a someone who lives in the Flathead area as a primary source of investigative journalism.
So reading some recent news stories (example here), I was feeling compelled to write a post defending Dennis McDonald. As far as I can tell, his connection to the mob that Republicans keep bringing up is that he helped bring down a significant number of members of the mafia.
I've been amazed at how much the Montana press lets the Republicans get away with it.
But then I read paragraphs like this from an email from McDonald's campaign: "We know of several incidents in the press over the last few years: getting so drunk that he fell off a horse in Kazakhstan; getting into a bar fight with his staff in Missoula at the Iron Horse; passing out on a cot at a bar in DC; and now getting into a drunken wreck up on Flathead Lake that almost caused [sic] the life of a young man."
As far as I can recall, Denny didn't get into a fight at the Iron Horse. One of this staff people threw a punch at a guy who was out-of-control. And he didn't pass out on a cot at a bar in DC. His operation made a hilarious mistake on a compliance form.
Second, John Quandt just filed against Bob Jaffe for city council in Missoula. The Missoulian's blog MissoulaRedTape.com did a writeup and I'm amused by this bit:
"I've been here for three years. I haven't received any notices about public hearings or anything of that matter," Quandt says.
He's up against Ward 3 Councilman Bob Jaffe, who puts out a weekly committee report on his listserv. Quandt's review?
"The city should be able to do that directly and not just rely on a single Council member to do it, although it's great," he says.
Quandt is apparently running on a platform of transparency by running against one of the two arguably most transparent members of council. Jaffe set up the MissoulaGov listserv that anyone can sign onto to get plugged in to local government stuff.
Perhaps more ironically, Quandt is a local Republican, the same home shared with folks like Dick Haines and John Hendrickson, who admittedly are covering for other members of city council who are trying to anonymously fight the revised city zoning rules.
So, Quandt is an advocate for open government allied with warriors for obfuscation running against a paragon of transparency.
Clear enough?
One anonymous commenter shares my amusement:
Welcome to the Missoulian's Sunday B Section, complete with community calendar, public notice advertisements and all sorts of good stuff. And that leaves out all the news coverage. And the other news outlets. And that letter OPG sent to all property owners about the zoning rewrite. Say what you will about it, it definitely was notice of public hearing.
Rep. Scott Sales' HB 613 is up for third reading today, having narrowly passed second reading 51-49 yesterday.
That's really too bad.
The bill is basically drafted to tighten up residency requirements for voters and public officials. That's all fine-and-dandy for people who have very clear residency situations. Especially headed into a recession where things like couch surfing, temporary residences, etc., become more common, it isn't so great for large swaths of the population.
The bill says a person may only have one residence. Cool. That's current law. The problem comes from the efforts to say certain things cannot be a residence -- a parent's house, for example, once one has reached the age of majority, with only a handful of exceptions.
Normally, I wouldn't be very concerned about a bill like this, but ever since the Montana Republicans challenged 6,000 voters on specious residency grounds last fall, my ears perked up on this bill.
Consider the case of a soldier, stationed in New Jersey, but registered at his parent's new house in Montana, where he has no permanent room, but crashes in the guest room when he returns home. Under this bill, would that soldier's vote be open to challenge? And if it was challenged on Election Day, how would he be able to respond?
Or what about a recent college graduate, working a series of temporary jobs in and out of Montana, planning to return soon to their hometown, but can't afford an apartment and has a permanent bedroom in their parent's house. This individual may be able to consider Montana their residence, unless their wife lives with them in a hotel in Waco, TX, on a 4-week stint of work, in which case El Casa del Waco becomes their residence under this law.
Any problems this reform is trying to solve are minimal. The potential implications are very far-reaching.
Update - The bill died on third reading, with all fifty Democrats opposing it and one Republican in opposition as well.
