The Ten Most Influential Montanans of 2010

by: Doug Coffin

Sun Dec 26, 2010 at 11:39:15 AM MST

Looking at this or any list you have to understand the huge impact of government in our lives and on the Montana economy.

#1 It makes sense that the Gov tops our list. His impact is felt on all the major aspects of our life and work: the state budget, K-12 education and higher education, tourism, agriculture, etc. Schweitzer named a new Regent and two new University Presidents were hired. Make no mistake about it, the Gov has a huge say in who they are a big say in what state govt money goes where.

#2. Will Descamps is the State Republican Party leader. In a year when they had a huge landslide at the polls, he has to get a lot of the credit. Much of that comes from recruiting candidates well before the election. Admittedly it was a national trend that rolled over Montana, but the state GOP was poised to take advantage and it did in a big way. We'll feel the influence of the 2011-13 legislature for a long time.

#3. Max is one of the most powerful Senators in Washington and that is always felt at home. If the Gov controls the flow of state money in MT, Max controls the flow of the federal money in MT and MT gets a lot relative to other states. He has a big say in nominees for federal jobs in Montana (US Marshall, etc.) and his impact on Montanans through PPACA (Obamacare) and ARRA (The Stimulus) was huge. The big question buzzing around is:Will we see Schweitzer vs Baucus in 2014? I bet not.

#4. Jon Tester is all over LiTW and the Newspapers over his Wilderness Bill that, of course, met the same fate as wilderness bills over the last thirty years. I know there was stink over his DREAM vote, but beyond most of us liberals, nobody in MT gives a damn about that. Look for a Rheberg-Tester matchup for 2012.

#5. Waded Cruzado is the new President of Montana State University. She has hit the ground running and, since Montana University System campuses are economic engines for most major population centers in the state she has a big impact. Cruzado's energy is palpable. She has already begun a major reorganization of the MSU branch of the university system. Look for much more before she leaves for greener pastures.

#6. How could we not include Denny? He also gets some credit for leading the GOP sweep in MT and for stirring up the "Great Wolf Debate" (which really isn't great at all). Denny also has some impact in WDC, but not much. He's most infamous for being one of the least effective legislators under the dome, except when it comes to building his personal fortune though is position. He still manages to win by a landslide. Go figger.

#7. Donald Molloy, as our Federal District judge has a huge impact with rulings on Canis Lupus and other key MT economic and environmental issues. He also made the headlines by moving to senior status. Of course Max will have a big say on who Obama names to replace him.

#8. George Dennison retired after a very influential career and essentially picked his own replacement. The infamous $65K "search that never was" made national headlines. His impact on the other side of the U-system (UM vs MSU or Griz-Cat) has been big and his exit was no exception. What will come from the new Prez (Engstrom)? Two months isn't enough time to tell.

#9. Bob Lake? You might ask.... yes, because the state senator, owned by the real estate industry, was the behind the scenes operator who engineered and shepherded CI-105 through the electoral process. It stands as a hallmark to special interest politics and it's one of the biggest ruses that has ever been pulled over the eyes of Montana voters. The cynical notion of using millions in out of state funding to eliminate a tax that doesn't exist most certainly sets a precedent to be followed in the future.      

#10. Canis lupus, the grey wolf, has been illegitimately splattered all over our state newspapers and blogs. If there has ever been a bigger non-issue, I don't know what it is. But three of my top 10 influencers are there because or the great grey-boy. So who am I to talk?
Truth be told the grey wolf has little influence on our economy or lifestyle, except to pull in a few more tourists, sell some more pictures and provide government work to some micro-managing wildlife mangers in MT, ID and WY. Grey-boy also serves to get Do-Nothing-Denny reelected.

So there you have my top ten....who shows up on your list?  
 

The baby of Rosemary's Baby

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 10:28:52 AM MST

In this year's midterm elections, there is no talk of satchels of cash from donors. Nor is there any hint of illegal actions reaching Watergate-like proportions. But the fund-raising practices that earned people convictions in Watergate - giving direct corporate money to a campaign and doing so secretly - are back in a different form in 2010.

This time around, the corporations are still giving secretly, but legally. In 1907, direct corporate donations to candidates were legally barred in a campaign finance reform push by President Theodore Roosevelt. But that law and others - the foundation for many Watergate convictions - are all but obsolete. This is why many supporters of strict campaign finance laws are wringing their hands.
Certainly, it is still illegal for corporations to contribute directly to candidates. But they now have equally potent ways to exert their influence. This election year is the first since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allows corporations for the first time to finance ads that directly support or oppose political candidates. And tax laws and loopholes have permitted a shadow campaign network of Republican-leaning nonprofit groups to collect a flood of anonymous donations and spend it widely.

If the Republicans make big gains in the House and Senate on Election Day, there is rare bipartisan consensus that they will owe part of their victory to the millions of dollars raised and spent by these nonprofit groups, much of which has come from businesses.

The groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the American Action Network and Crossroads GPS, which is linked to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, have committed to spending well over $150 million this year. President Obama has railed against these groups as they have poured money into races in which once-secure Democrats are hanging by a thread.

But the attacks may have only helped build the groups' fund-raising muscle. Crossroads GPS and a sister organization, American Crossroads, have received more than $100,000 in small donations through the Web, when they had expected most gifts to come in big checks. And the groups' leaders have only grown more influential - far more influential than the Republican National Committee, led by Michael Steele. Evidently, the corporate donors love having a secret route to influence politics and elect Republicans without showing their hands to a Washington still controlled by the Democrats.

So much for open elections and the democratic process.

Citizens United steamrolled previous court decisions that opined corporate involvement in our electoral process was unsavory and destructive to representative government. That is, the SCOTUS - or the radical elements therein - now considers the corporation "a burnished image of the good citizen." But given the involvement of corporations in politics in the weeks and months after Citizens United, you'd have to agree with the 1990 SCOTUS majority opinion in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which "lambasted" the entry of corporations "into the political arena" because of "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas."

Wheee. Americans, meet your new overlords.

Big Mac lines

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 10:21:25 AM MST

McDonald's plans to hire about 1,000 people across 600 restaurants in the Pacific-Sierra region, which includes Northern Nevada and California.

The company doesn't have a final estimate yet of how many people took part in the event but several stores were reporting lines this afternoon, said Jake Mossawir, regional spokesman for McDonald's.

While the lines outside of California and Nevada McDonald's restaurants augurs better service at fast-food chains in the West, I'm thinking this isn't a good sign for either the economy or the American worker.

Double-ugh:

Unemployment continues to hover well above 12 percent in the Sacramento area, and furloughs have cut hours and pay for thousands of state workers. Now, older, experienced workers compete head to head with teens and young adults for part-time positions at fast-food restaurants.
For all their differences, Smith and Giles were drawn to the McDonald's event for the same reason - the possibility of a job with health benefits.

"Medical benefits - that's the big draw right now," Smith said. "I had an allergic reaction to medication. Now I'm in debt for that."

Another strike against the health-care system. When need for insurance pushes overqualified candidates to work for a fast-food chain, that's a problem. Aren't we, as an economy, sacrificing innovation and efficiency by clinging to a broken insurance industry?

Solving the Demand-Side Problem

by: Matt Singer

Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 09:43:16 AM MST

Corporate profits are soaring. Companies are sitting on billions of dollars of cash. And still, they've yet to amp up hiring or make major investments -- the missing ingredients for a strong economic recovery.

Many Democrats say the economy needs more stimulus. Business lobbyists and their Republican allies say it needs less regulation and lower taxes.

But here in the heartland of America, senior executives say neither side's assessment fits.

They blame their profound caution on their view that U.S. consumers are destined to disappoint for many years. As a result, they say, the economy is unlikely to see the kind of almost unbroken prosperity of the quarter-century that preceded the financial crisis.

This is a textbook case for Keynesian economics. Hilariously, though, the Post makes the claim that this isn't really about stimulus.

This isn't rocket science, though. I've gotten more cautious in my spending. I'm working to pay down my debt. So are millions of others. But if we want to figure out what it would take for me to drive fewer dollars into savings or paying off debt, ask me or the millions of other people out there who are engaging in this altered behavior.

More money in the economy would do it. Almost certainly. And there are ways for either the Fed or the Congress to inject more money into the economy. In fact, they could do it by borrowing the money that consumers like myself are putting back into savings.

If our economy comes back in an altered state, that's good. If we have more money going to CSAs, organic farmers, and gardening supply companies and tool libraries and less going to underwrite crap food chains, that's awesome. If we have more money going into savings and less into purchases of unnecessary crap, that's awesome. Economic transitions are, of course, painful. But we don't need to insist that this one be more painful than necessary.

David Obey's biggest regret

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 10:19:25 AM MST

But I leave more discontented when I came here because of the terrible things that have been done to this economy by political leaders who allowed Wall Street to turn Wall Street banks into gambling casinos which damned near destroyed the economy.

I think the more important thing was what was my biggest failure. I think our biggest failure collectively has been our failure to stop the ripoff of the middle class by the economic elite of this country, and this is not just something that happened because of the forces of the market.

H/t to Kevin Drum for the quote, who notes, "despite the legislative achievements of the Obama administration...this hasn't changed even modestly over the past few years." Except that the legislative achievements of the Obama administration have done nothing to disrupt the institutions or structure that abets this redistribution of income to the rich; their policies have only mitigated the damage done.

Still, I agree with Kevin that this is the biggest threat to our economy.

Immigrants don't steal jobs

by: Jay Stevens

Tue May 18, 2010 at 05:47:18 AM MST

Yglesias:

But of course when you look at the politics of this issue, none of this is reflected. The people clamoring to "control the border" aren't recent low-skill immigrants from Mexico. It's very rarely native born high-school dropouts either. Rather, the people upset about immigration tend to be white high school graduates, a group that has a lot of conservative opinions about many issues but generally benefits from high levels of immigration.

Kevin Drum suggests that immigration opponents' opposition "...is rooted less in economic concerns and more in cultural resentment and language angst." Which isn't really accurate, either, given the number of immigration opponents that proudly point to, say, German, Irish, or Italian immigrant ancestors.

It's racism. Not the overt, old-fashioned segregation and lynching kind...it's the face of a kind of new racism, in which a handful of people, no doubt feeling threatened, confused, or annoyed by the myriad and rapidity of change - economic, cultural, moral, or technological, and not all of it positive - cling for self-identity to a highly politicized vision of the mythic American past, which, at its center, includes a racial and ethnic identity. Obama does not belong to the mythology, nor, apparently, does the most recent Miss America - a Muslim-American woman who "usurped" the "rightful" owner of the crown, Arizona-immigration-policy-supporting Miss Oklahoma. A "real" American doesn't speak with an accent, drive the wrong car, worship the wrong God, or veer from the views of the conservative punditry.

And I do think there's an economic component to this resentment that's written into the mythology as the "Protestant work ethic," but is probably more about the fear of immigrants slicing off a too-generous helping from the US government's budget pie. It's no coincidence that the areas of the country most hostile to civil and immigrant rights are also the most federally subsidized. And it's no coincidence that Reagan's pairing of federal welfare abuse with single black mothers resonated so sharply with many white, middle-class voters.

Whatever. Let's just say that distrust of immigrant populations runs deep, and all the evidence in the world that new Americans actually benefit the US economy will change neither the canard associating immigrants with job loss nor any anti-immigration views.

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.

Bringing High-Quality Food Aid Closer to Home

by: borderjumpers

Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:24:24 AM MST

Cross-posted from the Worldwatch Institute's Nourishing the Planet.

The highways in southern Africa are filled with trucks carrying food aid across the continent. In the past, much of the maize, rice, soy, and other foods loaded onto these trucks came not from African farmers, but from the United States. And while these shipments provided much needed calories to people in need, they also disrupted national and local markets by lowering prices for locally grown food.

But today, more and more of the crops providing food aid come from African farmers who are selling directly to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) through local procurement policies. In Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zambia, and several other nations in sub-Saharan Africa (as well as in Asia and Latin America), WFP is not only buying locally, but helping small farmers gain the skills necessary to be part of the global market.

The WFP's Progress for Profit (P4P) program, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and the Belgian government, is working with the private sector, governments, and NGOs to provide an incentive for farmers to improve their crop management skills and produce high-quality food, create a market for surplus crops from small and low-income farmers, and promote locally processing and packaging of products.

In Zambia, WFP buys food directly from the Zambia Agricultural Commodity Exchange while remaining "invisible," says Felix Edwards of the Zambia P4P Program. This way, WFP Zambia doesn't distort prices and helps create an alternative market for farmers. WFP also works through its partners, including USAID's PROFIT program, to help farmers and farmer associations meet the quality standards required by the Exchange. As a result, they are preparing Zambian farmers to provide high-quality food aid not only to programs and consumers in their own country, but also potentially to growing regional and international markets.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy our diary every day we invite you to get involved:
1.Comment on our daily posts -- we check for comments everyday and want to have a regular ongoing discussion with you.
2.Receive regular updates--Join the weekly BorderJumpers newsletter by clicking here.
3.Help keep our research going--If you know of any great projects or contacts in West Africa please connect us connect us by emailing, commenting or sending us a message on facebook.

Gloomy thoughts for a sunny day

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 13:48:02 PM MST

Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is playing a crucial role in bipartisan negotiations over financial regulation, pressed to remove a provision from draft legislation that would have empowered federal authorities to crack down on payday lenders, people involved in the talks said. The industry is politically influential in his home state and a significant contributor to his campaigns, records show.

I've been following politics for a long time, and this is the first time that I can remember where Democrats held a solid and unbreakable majority in both federal legislatures and held the White House. And I have to say, it's been d*mn demoralizing. Evidence A: banking regulation.

You'd think, after watching the financial sector torpedo the American economy, good, efficient, and workable banking regulation would be a priority. And there was hope, in Chris Dodd's consumer protection agency, which would have consolidated financial regulation into one body, and which would have refocused regulation on consumer protection, something has been missing in the crazed, corporate-fueled deregulation blitz of past decades.

You'd think corporate behavior in the financial sector after the bailout - the insolent, massive payouts to its executives, the orchestrated maneuvering to place blame for the crash on blacks and the poor, the exorbitant fees and interest rates imposed on its customers - that regulation would sail through Congress. But Dodd's agency has been effectively torpedoed, regulation watered down.

And now this. Corker's reflexive protection of the most rapacious lending industries in existence. Legal loan sharking targeting those with the least financial savvy and least ability to recover from parasitic interest rates.

And in diluting or warping good legislation beyond recognition,  Corker is not alone. After all it was Max Baucus himself who was the first to grab a House jobs bill as it came into the Senate, steered it into his Tax and Finance Committee, and made it contingent on "reforming" the estate tax (and preserving the odious Patriot Act). That's right - a bill to help the unemployed find work must also help the children of the mega-wealthy keep their condos in Vail.

In short, it's been demoralizing seeing this Democratic supra-majority squandered in the back rooms, gutted by "compromises" that riddle bills with so many loopholes that they end up looking like the legislative version of swiss cheese.

Yes, I know, legislation is the result of years of work. Yes, I know I should be patient. Yes, sure, some banking regulation is better than no regulation (...or is it?). But I don't see any relief, any glimmer of values from Democratic legislators.

Or am I missing something?

Mayor Engen's Impressive Economic Team

by: Matt Singer

Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:03:11 PM MST

So this is good news:

But Engen more than made up for that a few weeks later when he provided a detailed outline of the [economic development] project's mission and methods, and made it clear that he is prepared to continue cracking the whip in order to get results right away.

St. Patrick Hospital president Jeff Fee, University of Montana executive vice president Jim Foley; Williamsworks founder and president Whitney Williams, NorthWestern Energy president Bob Rowe, First Security Bank president Scott Burke, Washington Cos. president Larry Simkins and Missoula Redevelopment Agency director Ellen Buchanan

My only complaint? The focus seems to be, as it is so often, on recruiting business. There are huge gains still to be made in Montana by developing homegrown businesses. Le Petit's expansion can be big local news. Big Sky's expansion has brought lots of jobs to town. Kettlehouse's growth is having a similar effect. There are interesting tech companies already based in town. Helping these folks grow is likely a surer bet for stable economic expansion than poaching industries from elsewhere.

It's not that poaching business is a terrible idea. I just think it shouldn't be job one.

Republicans Against Savings Claim Recovery Act Creates Jobs

by: Junior

Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:51:49 PM MST

Now it might be confusing to someone, but Montana was in a unique situation when congress pass the recovery act - we had money.  So, the legislature created a $20 million dollar grab bag of general fund money for local governments to spend.  These are not federal recovery act dollars.  Remember the rubber-tilled tennis courts in Bozeman was out of this free for all.

Now Republicans are all in a fuss over Schweitzer holding and saving the remaining $3.5 million until we have a better picture of the budget.  It shouldn't make anyone blink, these are the same Republicans who said we have "too much in the bank" when the Governor vetoed some unnecessary spending.  

No I mean the same Republicans who proclaim that spending is out of control.  Here is Sen. Dave Lewis (R-Helena) who said "Everything has to be on the table." and "In the meantime, we just keep driving toward that steep drop-off." Republican leaders are also saying a special session is needed.

The latest pork project Republican to jump for the bacon was Sen. Jim Peterson.  No one should be surprised by that -- Sen. Peterson has been living off the tax trough for some time.

Someone said it best, if you take the hypocrisy out of politics you won't have any politicians left.  But you can't have it both ways - spend in my district, but cut the budget. Now I just wish reporters in Montana could pick up on this hypocrisy.

Robbing the poor to feed the rich

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 07:51:17 AM MST

It has legs.

Forty-five fellow R's, including twenty-one Republican legislator wannabes have signed on to it.

Here it is:

Oregon just raised it taxes on businesses. And Senator Jeff and 44 others say we need to advertise in Eugene and Ontario and Hines and elsewhere and entice businesses there to come to Montana because of our business-friendly tax climate.

To his and the R's credit, the rhetoric is, well, rhetorical:

Essmann said Oregon had taken a "higher tax path" to the detriment of good business. And while Montana's own tax system isn't perfect, he added, it does offer a favorable tax policy when compared to Oregon.

Among the advantages, Essmann named Montana's top marginal income tax. He said it helps small businesses retain capital and reinvest it, making it possible to expand and hire new employees.

"We need to leverage every competitive advantage we can," Essmann said. "We think now is the time, when we have a need for more jobs - and with small business in Oregon feeling under duress - to advertise the availability and the quality of our work force, and have Oregon businesses take a look."

So, what's going on? Jeff and his fellow travellers might need to review how the higher tax path was accomplished. By a vote of more than half of the state's registered voters.

Actually, there were two initiatives that passed. The Montana R's conveniently ignore the fact that the Legislature approved the tax increases last spring. Irate Oregonians took matters into their own hands and gathered enough signatures and place the tax increases on the ballot. By gum, we'll show 'em. Measure 66, which raises taxes on households earning $250,000 or more, passed by 54 percent. Measure 67, which increases corporate levies, passed with 53 percent.

Those damned, pesky voters.

So, now, let's see, Oregon bad. Montana good.  

Tamara "Tammy" Hall Makes No Sense

by: Montana Cowgirl

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 17:01:42 PM MST

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.  

Smurfit-Stone Execs Took $47 Million in Bonuses This Year

by: Matt Singer

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:16:58 PM MST

I suppose this is the new trickle down from Wall Street's largesse. Infuriating.

Smurfit-Stone Closing; Big Hit to Missoula Economy

by: Matt Singer

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:39:07 AM MST

In specific terms, the plant closure means the loss of 417 high-paying jobs, with an average annual salary of $70,000.

"Those jobs represent about 4 percent of the Missoula's economy," Barkey said. "In terms of what it represents for the economy - that's about a $45 million loss annually.

The only bright spot in the dark day was the fact that employees will receive benefits under the Trade Assistance Act - but only because those federal benefits were approved within the past year during the plant's last round of layoffs.

As the day wore on, as Houseman went from one management meeting to the next, taking short breaks to explain the news and its repercussions to his fellow union members and coworkers, his exhaustion and heavy heart could be heard in his voice.

Weary, he talked about upcoming meetings with Smurfit representatives to discuss severance packages and about the many union meetings to come.

His voiced cracked, and Houseman paused for a moment to say quietly: "This is not a very good day."

Economic boo bird

by: SlyStill

Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 18:21:51 PM MST

"...it's a case of the perfect being an enemy of the planet."

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 17:01:40 PM MST

But there's also, it seems, growing opposition to cap-and-trade from people who should be on the side of progress - but whose reaction is basically "Eek! Markets!Wall Street! Speculation! Bad!"

We don't need this.

So let me talk a bit about why this reaction is 99% wrong, and bad for the planet....

By all means keep a watchful eye on speculators and regulate derivatives - and make market manipulation illegal, as Waxman-Markey does. But don't apply standards to emissions trading that you don't apply to any other market.

The solution to climate change must rely to an important extent on market mechanisms - it's too complex an issue to deal with using command-and-control. That means accepting that some people will make money out of trading - and that yes, sometimes trading will go bad. So? We've got a planet at stake; it's crazy to cut off our future to spite Goldman Sachs's face.

I've been suspicious of this meme since rightie concern trolls showed up here and elsewhere bragging about how Wall Street is already planning how to make a killing on cap-and-trade. For one, speculators typically don't explain how they're going to manipulate markets before they do.

Between a rock and a hard place...

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:22:05 AM MST

But at the National Abortion Federation, a hotline for women seeking abortion information has been "ringing off the hook," according to the group's president, Vicki Saporta.

"We are currently getting more calls from women who report that they or their partner have recently lost their job, and we are also hearing from more women facing eviction," she said.

One recent inquiry came from a 24-year-old married woman in Colorado who was evicted after her landlord went into foreclosure. Another came from a 32-year-old pregnant mother in Virginia who had lost her job and health insurance.

"As more and more women and families are struggling due to the crisis, it's affecting more than just low-income families. Now more middle-class and working class families are facing the types problems that we've heard from low-income women," Saporta said.

As with many other nonprofits, abortion assistance groups are being inundated with requests for aid just as funding is drying up.

It'll be interesting to see conservatives contort themselves opposing abortion and health care reform, because apparently they're inversely related.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, the best way to reduce abortion is to improve access to health care and day care. Certainly the answer isn't to use the state to impose draconian, 14th-century morality on the people. And, h*ll, that didn't work too well back in the 14th century, either...

Let them eat corn dog

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:56:39 AM MST

It's hard to feel any sympathy for these people. I mean...they got us into this mess chasing their paychecks. An excerpt:

Their anger takes many forms: There is rage at Obama for pushing to raise taxes ('The government wants me to be a slave!' says one hedge-fund analyst); rage at the masses who don't understand that Wall Street's high salaries fund New York's budget ('We're fucked,' says a former Lehman equities analyst, referring to the city); rage at the people who don't 'get' that Wall Street enables much of the rest of the economy to function ('JPMorgan and all these guys should go on strike-see what happens to the country without Wall Street,' says another hedge-funder)."

Hm. What happens if they go on strike -- and no one notices? Or better yet, we use their "strike" as an excuse to reform the financial industry?

But seriously, none of these *sshats would actually go on strike. They know someone would gladly step in and do the same thing they do for a tenth of their pay. And probably do just as well.

Ezra Klein:

The public views bankers much like the law views the robber. The money they made was illegitimate. The business was fraudulent. They took hefty cuts on hyped transactions that moved fake money. They inflated the bubble and saw their fees rise commensurately. They made things worse, in other words, and by making things worse, they made themselves richer. The robber, at least, does not leverage your jewelry before pocketing it. The banker's money was not fairly acquired and thus restitution is owed.

The bankers would protest that collapse was not, in fact, their intention. The proof is in the equity: They were paid -- at least in part -- with share in their own stock. That stock is now worthless. They may have been stupid but they were not malign. They may have been incompetent but they were not thieves. Their behavior might have been different if their contracts had included clawback provisions. But customers wanted the rewards of risk and so paid bankers to take it. Everyone got what they wanted until everyone got what they feared. But the banker holds no special moral culpability for the reversal of fortune.

What Klein leaves out is that the bankers gamed the system, removed the safeguards from the finance, then relentlessly followed a path of risky investments that benefited only a small portion of society, all the while banking on the fact that all of society would take on their losses. Which we did. And still do.

So there is "moral culpability." Bankers are simply mistaking the culture of high financiers for society writ large. It's not okay to be greedy at the risk of someone else's expense in the real world. Sure, the hedge fund managers' customers are also culpable. Let them take losses, too.

And then there's this news:

Top officials at Chrysler Financial turned away a government loan because executives didn't want to abide by new federal limits on pay, according to new findings by a federal watchdog agency.

Instead, the car company "opted to use more expensive financing from private banks, adding to the burden on the already fragile automaker and its financing company." Chrysler execs are no doubt banking on the hope that, if the private financing fails, they can still turn to the government as a last resort. In the meantime, they can enjoy their overinflated executive pay.

In any case, all this reminds me of an interview with former IMF economic  advisor Simon Johnson, who advocates getting rid of the country's "financial oligarchy."

Fine by me.  

The Good Guv refocuses horse slaughterhouse debate

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:12:06 AM MST

What with all my b*tching about how this bill gives the horse slaughter industry privileged protection from litigation, it's irked me that most reports talk about the issue as if the legislature is voting on slaughterhouses themselves. So it's a relief to see Schweitzer, with his veto, focus the discussion on the bill's important elements. Schwetizer:

Before addressing my specific amendments, I want you to know that, like you, I believe horse owners must be responsible for the health and care of their animals. Like you, I believe it is unacceptable that any horse would be left starving or to die due to neglect. I also believe owners should have access to a legal method to put their horses down as necessary and appropriate - due to age, infirmity, or other legitimate circumstances.

While I understand the value in licensing horse slaughter facilities, it is equally important that any facility approved to operate in Montana comply with this state's health and environmental laws. Therefore, a person applying to license a horse slaughter facility who wishes to do so in accordance with Montana law has nothing to fear from the amendments I propose.

This isn't a bill about horse slaughterhouses, it's an attempt to gut state regulations for a specific industry -- and, if successful, no doubt a harbinger of a host of similar bills in future legislatures for the worst offenders of environment, health, and safety regulations. If your vision for the future of Montana is a landscape peppered with unregulated horse slaughterhouses, tire-burning plants, and nuclear waste dumps, by all means, support Ed Butcher's opposition to the Good Guv's amendments.

But if you believe that all industry compete on a level playing field, that all businesses should abide by the rules we've set for them, that we shouldn't craft special legislation for the worst industries, you'll support Schweitzer's amendments.

Oh, and as a little added touch of comic relief for a post heavy with serious rhetoric, check out the Missoulian's recent editorial on the bill:

Nobody wants to see these noble animals suffer. We can probably all agree that something needs to be done. We need a way, and a place, to dispose of elderly or infirm horses.

That is why we must once again applaud those who have stepped forward to take on the heavy burden of this responsibility, namely the folks behind Willing Servants, a new organization based in the Bitterroot Valley that helps find homes - or humane ends - for unwanted horses.

We are not so sure about a bill the Montana Legislature approved recently that would make our state the only one in the nation to welcome a slaughterhouse for horses that now awaits only Gov. Brian Schweitzer's signature, or veto. Himself a regular horse-rider (in campaign ads, at least), we imagine the governor, too, is asking himself: What is it about horses?

Those whacky horses!

Way to take a stand, Missoulian. Sadly, this mamby-pamby avoidance of issues seems to be becoming a trend among the state's newspapers...