"The era of radical environmentalists and their pet politicians running roughshod over blue-collar workers and small business must come to an end," Sinrud said in a press release. "Responsible development is being shut down with bogus lawsuits and policy, and it is the middle-class and working families who are suffering."
Environmentalists are responsible for all our woes? Not the fact that working-class jobs have been shipped overseas because of big money trade policies? Not the fact that the conservatives' anti-union movement (now in the state party platform!) has hamstrung workers' ability to demand better wages? Not that Republicans - including Sinrud himself - have shorted Montana's schools, and hamstrung the state's future before they even had a chance to start out?
Amazing, isn't it? And here we naively thought that Sinrud's departure from the legislature meant there would be a chance that we'd see a constructive, unified legislature work on common goals from divergent points of belief and ideology. And here he is, sniping from the outside, poisoning the well.
Whoo, boy! You've probably already read how John Sinrud's planning on keeping busy when he's not busy cramming for architecture licensing exams: he's going to start a group to battle "radical environmentalists"!
Here's the kicker:
Although the group seeks to provide good-paying mining, logging and other natural resource jobs for blue-collar workers, it also has a tie to Montana's right-to-work movement. Right-to-work laws ban the so-called "closed shop," which makes union membership a condition of employment. Unions have successfully fought efforts to pass these laws in Montana for decades.
Got that? Sinrud's fighting for industries to pay folks rock-bottom wages (probably with long hours and scant health care coverage) to despoil their own environment! What a sweet deal for the people of Montana...
Of course, despite their pro-worker, pro-job rhetoric, Marlenee and Sinrud are creating yet another fringe, anti-labor Republican front group who will desperately dig for as much money as they can from businesses, who would be much better off spending their money on benefits and training for their workers.
I'd expect this group to become another mouth for the foundering Roy Brown/Steve Daines ticket. I'd also expect that their 990's will be filed well after the election is over to avoid any embarrassment for donors. When that 990 is filed, I also imagine it will show that Sinrud and Marlenee will probably take a hefty cut of those donations in the form of direction fees. It's so predictable, I'm surprised Chuck Johnson gave them over 1000 words.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone formed a group to battle radical ex-legislators?
Here's an interesting letter: Rep. Krayton Kerns takes up the names of Roger Koopman and John Sinrud and compares them to Vietnam Veterans who got unfairly picked on.
For those keeping score at home, this is the second insane comparison between John Sinrud's woes and those of men and women serving our country in warzones.
Beyond that, the letter is simply inane, including quotes like this, "Politics is truly a blood sport."
No. It's not Mr. Kerns. Neither Roger Koopman nor John Sinrud got shot at in the line of duty.
Honestly, Martyrs appear to be a dime a dozen in the GOP House ranks.
So I still have not managed to get my hands on a copy of the investigative report, but I'm trying.
Still, so far no one seems to be able to provide a clear delineation between architecture and architectural design, which is what Sinrud says he was doing.
Also strange? I haven't see anything from Montana's conservative blogs. If there was any clear evidence that this is indeed political intimidation, I'd think they'd be rallying.
So, based on what I've got, I'm thinking that the political witchunt stuff is a load.
Can anyone more familiar than me help those of us who are total lay people figure out what John Sinrud is saying he doesn't do that means that he isn't an architect.
This is an area where I certainly lack expertise. So I'm wondering if it's a case of misapplied justice or if Rep. Sinrud is simply the Jerry O'Neil of the architecture world?
Normally I wouldn't comment on this story about how a state board ordered John Sinrud to quit practicing architecture until he obtains an architecture's license - it's how he puts food on his plate, and has nothing to do with his legislative work - if it weren't for this quote:
"It was nothing but political, absolutely and completely political," Sinrud said Monday. "It's a political hit because I caused the governor some problems."
As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Sinrud has disagreed with Schweitzer often.
Sinrud said he and his family have been living on savings since mid-October because he can't work, "but something's going to have to fall in the next two months."
"It could force me out of Montana and the Legislature, and that's exactly what the governor wants," Sinrud said.
Sinrud denies he does architecture; instead he does "development."
The governor virulently denies the charge. "It would be delusional," Schweitzer said. "I didn't even know what he did for a living." (Shades of Scott Sales threatening to take down the legislative special session because he thought the Good Guv had scheduled it to interfere with a conference of state legislative leaders?)
I don't pretend to know the subtle differences between "development" and architecture, but there were loads of "projects" on Sinrud's website (now down) showing buildings his company designed. Sinrud also has a history of misrepresenting his credentials: for at least five years on his work website (also down) Sinrud claimed he had been elected in 2000 to his legislative seat, when in fact he had been appointed in 2002.
In short there's more "evidence" that Sinrud practiced architecture than there is that the Good Guv is filling some sort of vendetta against the House Appropriations Committee Chair.
Still, I hope John untangles his legal woes, or gets an architect's license, or finds a way out of the mess he's found his way into. It's decidedly unfun to have your livelihood threatened.
Well, Sinrud played his game, even asking recently during an Audit Committee hearing, "Where is it that we have to protect those structures? Why not just let them burn?" Now, I'm sure this was nothing more than an attempt to flesh out first principles using the always popular Socratic method, but it does beg some awfully good questions, including "Where is that we have to enforce laws? Why not just let them be broken?" and "Where is it that we need to prevent violence? Why not just let people be assaulted?" Oh, wait, I already forgot, beating up on people is free speech in Sinrud bizarro universe.
Now, hilariously, Republicans have been attacking the Governor for vetoing a tax credit for firefighters, even as their own party's leadership gutted a proposal to fund those firefighters' paychecks. Given how expensive this firefighting season was, it'll probably require a second special session, meaning that Montana Republicans just may hold the dubious honor of turning 2007 into the first year in Montana history that the legislature had to convene three times because they kept f***ing up (someone may want to look into that, 'cause I think there's got to be a special place in history for Sales, Lange, and Sinrud, the men to whom we owe our gratitude for this situation).
Anyways, let's just keep in mind that Sinrud's response to big fire costs was to Monday Morning QB and suggest that the state should have just let the fires burn down people's houses.
All of this, of course, comes about a year after their last banner carrier, Conrad Burns, called firefighters lazy (hmm, maybe they already are letting these structures burn, they're just getting paid for it).
And the big Republican solution? Whine about tax cuts.
I had a post mostly written, parts of which I'll try to reconstruct later, but I managed to hit the "delete" key which my browser sometimes interprets as "Go Back" and lost everything.
Please, though, go read this article. Senate President Mike Cooney has proposed a meeting with bipartisan leadership of both chambers to make sure the upcoming special session isn't what we call in the business a big fucking waste of time and money.
The response? Hemming and hawing from the usual suspects -- Scott Sales, Mike Lange, and John Sinrud. These are three guys who could not be more constitutionally averse to leadership. On the first day of the session, they apparently got a new "Job Description" that consisted of the following points:
Say No.
Don't counter-offer.
Make personal attacks.
Repeat.
The difference between House GOP leadership and Homer Simpson building a BBQ is that Homer tried. That's where these jokers are now -- bigger punchlines than the dumbest man in the history of television.
Unfortunately, the Republicans aren't giving the bill a chance. It had a hearing two months ago and has never come up for executive action.
Why is that?
I have no idea. It might be because local Limbaugh Dave Berg attacked it for being akin to Saddam Hussein paying suicide bombers (a more malicious attack on Montana soldiers is tough to contemplate).
But you'd think John Sinrud, chair of the Appropriations Committee where it is languishing, would do something about it.
After all, Rep. Sinrud knows something about the difficulty of deployment. At least, I assume he does since his wife once compared his getting called into special session with the plight of a soldier or sailor being away for the holiday season.
Rep. Julie French made a blast motion today to get the bill out of committee and on to the floor. That motion died on a party line vote.
That says something about Republican priorities this session.
Two big things in today's Lee story on the budget. First, the Senate Dems say if the House continues to implode that they will clean up the mess. Second, Republican House leadership says they'll consider reviving HB 2 as long as a provision is made for permanent tax cuts.
Is that a worthwhile trade for HB 2?
It depends. Does permanent tax cuts mean permanent for resident homeowners who have been experiencing an increasing share of the tax load or is it an across-the-board cut that gives a nod to homeowners while moving the bulk of the cuts to corporations that have already been experiencing the bulk of the cuts offered under the Republican reign of '94-'04?
So the first question is what would the permanent cut look like.
The second question is whether a "permanent" cut is a sound move. The business cycle is basically an economic fact -- the economy grows and contracts (or at least stagnates). During economic expansion, tax revenues grow. During economic stagnation or recession, tax revenues stagnate or decline (at least, relative to inflation). A permanent cut during a time of fat is a poor way to be ready for a time of lean. It's mildly fiscally irresponsible.
Still, the fact that Republicans said they would be willing to revive HB 2 says that they are crying "Uncle!" Luckily, the Dems are standing up and expressing a willingness to get things done. Ultimately, this fight might come down to an issue of about 6% of the projected budget surplus. If that's the case, it's not the end of the world.
Well, this is a good sign: Scott Sales is "holding out an olive branch" (his words, not mine) to Democrats and inviting them to work together to build an HHS budget. It's a great idea -- so great, in fact, that it sounds almost suspiciously like the way the budget process was supposed to work before the Republicans threw out HB 2.
But what's most shocking about this is that the Republicans are looking to be seen as reasonable folks for basically admitting that their fifth punch to the gut was uncalled for and now offering to cut a deal with their victim.
Thanks, guys.
Honestly, when "Sideshow" Scott Sales and "Madman" Mike Lange won their leadership races, they did it by declaring war on the Governor and promising to obstruct everything he wanted. Sorry we took that at face value.
When it came time to appoint committee members, they stacked committees to be roughly 55%-60% Republican/Constitutionalist in a chamber 51% Republican/Constitutionalist.
When they didn't like the Governor's budget numbers, they didn't try to line up votes on committee to amend the budget, they threw the whole thing out and replaced it with sixeight budgets drafted by one man in a process that no one seems to fully understand yet.
When people turned out in droves to oppose their foolhardy process and their atrocious budget -- and very, very few people came to support it -- they accused their political opponents of behaviors reminiscent of Stalin and Nixon.
And when they couldn't marshall their own caucus to agree on a budget number, they threatened to cut all but $300 from the HHS budget, effectively eliminating health insurance for thousands of Montanans, plus a whole host of other services that are essential to Montanans.
I'm out of state right now, but I'm actually getting phone calls from incredulous people back home who simply can't believe that this is actually happening. Folks in D.C. simply don't believe it. I'd love to stick it to the Republicans with these facts. The problem is that they've passed the believability threshold. The attacks wouldn't be effective because the public at large simply will not accept that they are true -- never, they would think, would such cruel, stupid, and bullheaded people actually comprise a majority of a legislative chamber, especially given that much of the public voted for these people.
You can actually see this refusal to accept reality in letters to the editor. Twoletters in today's Gazette bemoan what the impact of the legislature's actions will be for Montanans, but go on to blame "partisanship" rather than the GOP for what is happening.
At the end of the day, what is happening in the Montana House is the result of a series of decisions by Republican leadership, who decided to go into the session with an attitude more fixated on confrontation than on results, led by a bunch of legislators who would rather declare war on their opposition than find common ground.
There's still a chance that common ground can be found, but I'd caution progressives around the state to be too anxious to cut a deal with these guys. Apologizing for the fifth punch isn't enough. Restoring HB 2 would be a real action from the GOP to indicate a willingness to work together. Until then, any outreach from Dems to the Republicans is a real quick way to reward unacceptable behavior.
In case you missed it, John Sinrud is accusing the Governor of strong arm tactics on the budget. He's throwing around the terms "Nixonesque" and "Stalinistic." Given that Schweitzer's family faced persecutation from both Nixon and Stalin, the attack was broke Helena's only irony-meter.
But before we venture too far into the game of believing anything that Rep. John Sinrud says, let's remember a few of his greatest hits:
We're seeing a lot of crazy this session. Little of it holds a candle to Sinrud's greatest hits. I swear, he must sit in the back of the House chambers and sniff glue.
Where is Scott Sales? -- Look, I have no doubt that sidelining the Sideshow made political sense, but why is the GOP sending out John "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" Sinrud to describe his visions while kicking their own Speaker to the curb? It hasn't reduced the level of "crazy" in the paper one bit.
Sorry, I just really can't imagine a nicer good faith explanation than "idiot." John Sinrud writes up a defense of his budgets as being "sustainable." This isn't even spin. It's bullshit.
How so? He writes that spending increases of 22% aren't sustainable. But the differences between the Demo budgets and the GOP budgets are as follows:
Ongoing spending. The Democratic plan does increase ongoing spending more than the GOP, but mostly in areas like corrections that need it or education, where it is needed and mandated by the Constitution.
One-time spending. I'm not really sure where this one falls, but I'll just say the Dems probably have more one-time spending since the Republicans really don't increase spending as much overall.
One-time tax cuts. The Dem budget has more one-time tax cuts than the GOP. That's a major attack the GOP is leveling against the Dems -- that the tax cuts aren't permanent.
Ongoing tax cuts. No question here -- the GOP has way more in the way of permanent tax cuts -- one of their core arguments.
Now, clearly, sustainability of a budget relates to the ratio of ongoing costs (fiscally speaking both an increase in expenditures and a decrease in revenues are basically the same thing, even if economically they are not) to one-time costs. The GOP's budget is less sustainable.
Hence, John Sinrud is full of it. Or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Now, some conservatives will no doubt claim that tax cuts will spark our economy and so the government's revenues will make up for any loss from the tax cuts and bring the second coming of the Lord. I'm not a theologian, so I'll only deal with the first half of that argument, but it's a pretty easy one to knock down.
Look, no economist on the planet would argue that tax cuts can't have an impact on economic growth. They can. The question is whether or not they can actually be cut and cause enough growth to make up for the cut in revenue. At very high levels, they probably can. But in the realm we're talking, and especially at the state level, count me as a skeptic. Here's why.
Let's say the income tax rates average 6% and get cut to 5%. It total incomes in the state are $1,000,000,000 this year, the 6% rate would bring in $60,000,000. In order for a 5% tax rate to do that (I * .05 = $60m; solve for I), the total amount of income would have to be $1,200,000,000. That's an amount 20% higher than the $1,000,000,000. Does anyone really think that a 1% cut in tax rates will spark a 20% growth in the economy? Sure, the economy either way will likely grow to $1.2b, but it would do that even under the old rate (possibly a bit slower).
Look -- I'm not saying that there aren't intellectually honest arguments for cutting taxes. If Rep. John Sinrud had written an op-ed that said, "To be perfectly honest, I hate the god damn government, want to cut its funding, and we're doing all we can to gut it like a pig," my response would be, "Well, I'm sure glad I didn't vote to put him in charge, but at least he's shooting straight about what his policies will do."
This stuff is no secret. Grover Norquist, the architect of the modern anti-tax movement fully admits the goal is to get government to the size that it can be drown in a bathtub. Why the Montana GOP can't just say they hate the gubmint to is beyond me.
Why the media lets them get away with these gross misrepresentations is also beyond me. I'd hope that if I called a reporter and said I support an increase in tax rates to help the rich, they'd respond by saying, "Um, yeah right. What's the real reason?"
Oh, and for those of you who like discussing logic, that 'or' in the title is an inclusive 'or.'
Big news today -- Rick Jore has announced he will not support the GOP budget package as it increases spending way too much.
"I don't like 13 percent increases in spending," Jore said. "The average Montanan is out there trying to make a living. They'd be in hog heaven if they had a 13 percent increase (in income). They're lucky if they get any increase."
Jore branded the proposed Republican budget increases "just outrageous."
Contrary to one legislative rumor, Jore said he won't leave the chamber to avoid voting, calling that tactic "an expression of a lack of integrity."
"I'm going to vote no," he said. "If they want to lower the budget down to a point, I'd consider voting for them."
The Dems, of course, are locked up (when someone pulls a gun on you during a political fight, you simply don't sit down at the table to negotiate -- apparently the GOP is pissed about this fact).
Now Republicans are threatening to make deeper cuts to pick up Jore's vote:
Interviewed separately, House Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, said, "If all 49 Democrats lock up, there's a good chance we're going to have to cut the budget to get Jore to vote for it."
Now, this is a fine threat, but it's really pretty damn hollow. Sure, they can keep cutting corrections further (note to GOP -- things like Jessica's Law that increase penalties also increase prison population; this isn't a complicated concept). They can take the long knife to higher education or K-12. They can destroy mental health funding.
There's two problems with this approach, though. They don't just need 51 votes in the House -- any bills that cut state spending that significantly and threaten public safety, public schools, and public health will be either changed significantly in the Senate or vetoed by the Governor. What's more -- the Dems' actions will be popular.
Beyond that, they'd lose their own caucus members. They can't keep their handful of moderates accepting these numbers. In the Senate, they'd lose even more.
The train has wrecked, Mike. I understand you're trying to get it back on the tracks, but doing that by running to the fringe rather than to the middle is an utter recipe for disaster.
Restore the process. Bring back HB 2.
Last tip -- Shane Mason points out that the Lange and the GOP -- in their arrogance and partisanship -- have brought this on themselves.
Is it just me or has Scott Sales kinda disappeared off the face of the planet? I don't mean in reality. I just mean I don't see his name any more at all in the media.
I'm also hearing that Mike Lange and John Sinrud are basically sidelining him in the decision-making process and I've been told there's no way he'd win his caucus's backing to be Speaker if they were reconsidering that decision these days.
Say it ain't so, sideshow. We hoped you'd be leading until the end.
I'm not entirely sure that this is correct, but near as I can tell, the big difference between HB2 and the 6-pack is spending levels and who is getting a tax cut.
Under HB 2 (the modified Schweitzer budget), Montana homeowners get a $400 cut. They also get that under the 6-pack. So that's basically the same (given that we can't really predict what is to come next biennium).
So let's take the $400 cut for homeowners off the table and let's ignore the cut for renters for now as well, since that's likely to end up in either final package.
What's different between the 2? The six-pack cuts a lot of spending, including in corrections, education, and health care. It sends that money into tax cuts for non-residential homeowners (rich people from California) and industry (BNSF, ExxonMobil, etc.).
The argument here, of course, is that if we're cutting taxes, we need to cut them fairly -- nevermind that business has been getting round after round of tax cuts over the last dozen years, often paid for by tax hikes on residential homeowners.
At the end of the day, the difference between the two packages for the median Montana family (the typical family) is, near as I can tell, that they get fewer services from the GOP plan, but no more of a tax break.
OK -- you got me. I'll admit it. I fell for the process story on the budget hook, line, and sinker. I thought that the big story in the budget process over the past two weeks was what you all had done to the process -- you know, throwing out months of work, ignoring the input of over a thousand Montanans, scrapping a decades-old process, and moving to a complicated system with six different budgets that are magically supposed to add up at the end.
If you missed it, Charles Johnson's piece on the budget from this past weekend is a must-read. The GOP is very proud of its new budgeting tactic. I recently argued that this system of budgeting is like having six or seven different household checkbooks. Apparently Rep. Sinrud is a reader. He tries to twist the metaphor to his own advantage:
House Appropriations Chairman John Sinrud, R-Bozeman, likened the GOP approach to a family breaking its home budget into various expenditure categories such as housing, health care, vehicles, utilities and entertainment.
"We're taking this right down to a household budget," he said. "Why shouldn't government do that?"
Unless Rep. Sinrud didn't follow things in the past, this is actually how things used to work. Relevant subcommittees would handle various portions of the budget, but it all came together with a single bottom line. That's like my budget, where I look at how much I'm spending in a variety of areas -- housing, health care, etc. -- and then adjust in order to make sure that my one bottom line is sound.
The new GOP system is different. It asks us to pretend that health care spending can be evaluated in a vacuum and voted on and approved for good separately from education spending. It pretends that these areas of the budget don't tradeoff with one another.
This can be done at the federal level for a couple reasons. The first is that the federal government has no balanced budget requirement. The second is that the feds are in session year round and have lots of time to make it work.
Montana has about 2/3 of the session to make it work. This idea isn't just poorly thought through, it was implemented damn quickly. I've read a number of comments that reaction to this plan is being overblown, but it isn't. The truth is that one of the biggest lessons I've learned over my relatively few years of organizing is the slowness with which certain ships (like state government) turn. The Montana legislature is already a bit of a clusterf*ck. Changing the rules in the middle of the process is really, really unlikely to make it any smoother sailing.
Moreover, it's only likely to result in a lot of pissed off people.
And that's just the likely result of the sudden change. What's more, I think the new system is not an improvement over the old one. We'll see whether or not I'm right about that, but springing this the way they did was a bad move.
Wow. I never thought I'd be writing this, especially given what is happening with the budget process, but as bizarre as our House Approps leadership is, it's nowhere near as strange as its counterpart in Texas:
Wow. Just when you think Republicans can't get any crazier, we find out that the powerful chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, Warren Chisum, doesn't even believe that the earth revolves around the sun.
"Still, it's enough to set the world a-spinning that the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the most powerful committee in the House, distributed to legislators a memo pitching crazed wingers who believe the earth stands still -- doesn't spin on its axis or revolve around the Sun -- that Copernicus was part of a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the Old Testament."
Jews, of course, have a vested interest in undermining the Old Testament. It is, after all, the foundation of their religion.
Nutbag doesn't even begin to describe this.
Update -- It just occured to me that I haven't verified that none of the Montana House share this opinion (by opinion, I mean blatantly incorrect falsehood).
