There was an interesting story in the Gazette about a week ago about how if the candidates for Governor of the state don't have a primary challenger, they will have to give some of the campaign contributions they have received so far back. As of last reporting Gov. Brian Schweitzer had over $200,000 at risk if he didn't have a primary challenger.
It's looking like Schweitzer is going to luck out though. Two complete political unknowns are set to enter the race and challenge Gov. Brian Schweitzer in the primary.
Did Schweitzer and the Democrat party put these guys up to this to save the big load of campaign cash Brian Schweitzer is carrying? No, I really don't think so, but it is a very effective way for two people to contribute a very large amount of money to the Schweitzer campaign. Over $100,000 a piece contribution to Schweitzer's campaign just for simply filing as a candidate. That's well above the $1,000 normally an individual can contribute so it is quite the campaign contribution.
Pogreba and Neiffer say they can bring a significant debate about education issues and how the Governor is weak in this area to the front burner. Maybe they can, and maybe they can't, I don't know. What I do know is that these two individuals have to know that people are going to look at their run with a very cynical eye and a lot of criticism with the campaign cash issue in play. If they didn't realize this, I think they are in for a rude awakening.
The whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards. Anatole France
Related tags
800 pound gorilla Abramoff access accountability agriculture air force animal health aphis Argentina ass kissing bison blame blame game board of livestoc brucellosis budget buffer zone bull shit business campaign cash campaign contribu cattle cbm children coal coal bed methane coal to fuel coal-to-fuel Conrad Burns court case ctl cynical death debate democrats dentist destruction development energy developmen environment EPA federal governmen fire game government government spendi growth hardin hb 114 hypocrisy idaho impropriety independence intern john adams Jon Tester leash lying malmstrom mca meat packers megalomaniac montana montana cattlemen montana farm bure montana legislatu montana stockgrow morrison msga nepotism noise north dakota obvious opposition otter creek coal partisan politics pesion fund planning politics PPL prison quarter Rep. Denny Rehber republicans responsibility retirement revisionist histo right school funding Schweitzer screwed over Sen. Jon Tester Sen. Max Baucus sirota special session split state stan boone status quo stock market stockgrowers stupidity surprise sustainability tax breaks tax cuts taxes usca usda walter schweitzer water adjudicatio water rights wind farm wolves worship wrong wrong answer wrong choice wyoming yellowstone natio YNPTuesday, March 18. 2008
Campaign Contribution
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Gov. Schweitzer, Montana Politics
at
06:30
| Comment (1)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: campaign cash, campaign contribu, cynical, Gov. Brian Schwei, montana, politics
Thursday, January 10. 2008
Sitting
I guess I'm not the only one that thinks Gov. Brian Schweitzer needs to get off his duff and do something with the Otter Creek coal tracts. So, will he do something about it? Maybe but I kind of doubt it.
Do something wonderful, people may imitate it. Albert Schweitzer
Do something wonderful, people may imitate it. Albert Schweitzer
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Gov. Schweitzer
at
06:24
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: Gov. Brian Schwei, otter creek coal
Saturday, January 5. 2008
Right Thing
Gov. Brian Schweitzer got it right here at least. I know earlier he was considering accepting the deal but the pressure must have been too great. Believe me, I don't think a court case is the best thing but what else is there to do?
Next to doing the right thing, the most important thing is to let people know you are doing the right thing. John D. Rockefeller
Next to doing the right thing, the most important thing is to let people know you are doing the right thing. John D. Rockefeller
Monday, December 24. 2007
Opposition
Source: Big Horn County News
Tester sides with state over jail
Well, we find out how one of our Senators feel about the Prison in Hardin. Senator Jon Tester falling in lock step with Gov. Brian Schweitzer, what a surprise (sarcasm intended). This is the first time in print that I have really seen it spelled out that the governor opposes private prisons. That must explain why our local Legislators are keeping silent about it. They don't want to cross the Governor.
Will this prison ever open? Will the Governor allow it to open? I guess economic development near Indian Reservations isn't important to our states Leaders. All questions that will be answered down the road.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
by Daniel Person
Big Horn County News
U.S. Sen. Jon Tester Tuesday said he has not encouraged federal agencies to contract with the detention center in Hardin because of the state’s stance on using the jail to house out-of-state prisoners.
He made the comments during his regular conference call with Montana reporters. When asked if had worked with any federal agencies to promote the jail, which currently is empty and losing money, he responded, “no.”
“That’s bad news, on the one had,” he continued. “On the other hand, whenever you start shipping people in from out of the state, the state needs to be part of the equation.”
Currently, the Montana Department of Corrections has not contracted with the jail to house its prisoners. David Ewer, the governor’s budget director, said the state considers the jail a private prison and that the Schweitzer administration stands opposed to using private jails in Montana.
Backers of the prison refute the contention that the jail is private, pointing out that the Two Rivers Trade Port Authority, an entity of the city of Hardin, owns the detention center.
Most recently, Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath had decided Montana law does not allow detention centers like to one in Hardin to house out-of-state prisoners. That decision, which carries the weight of law, has prompted a lawsuit from the city of Hardin against the state of Montana.
“Out-of-state prisoners have been a bone of contention” in Montana, Tester said. “We’ve really got to make sure the state is fully supportive of it.”
Well, we find out how one of our Senators feel about the Prison in Hardin. Senator Jon Tester falling in lock step with Gov. Brian Schweitzer, what a surprise (sarcasm intended). This is the first time in print that I have really seen it spelled out that the governor opposes private prisons. That must explain why our local Legislators are keeping silent about it. They don't want to cross the Governor.
Will this prison ever open? Will the Governor allow it to open? I guess economic development near Indian Reservations isn't important to our states Leaders. All questions that will be answered down the road.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
Monday, December 3. 2007
Energy Development
I see there is a new proposal out there to use some of the Otter Creek coal that the state of Montana is sitting on. Sounds interesting to say the least.
Why is it necessary to transport the coal almost 500 miles from Ashland to Butte to do this? Why can't they build the plant at Ashland and save all the expense of moving the coal? I wonder if the carbon cost of moving this coal is figured into the calculations of this plant?
In no way am I sold on this coal to gas to algae to ethanol idea this dude, William Bruce, is proposing. It sounds awful far fetched to me. It might work, I don't know. I would just like to know why Butte instead of closer to the coal like Ashland.
I would also like to know when the Governor is going to actually lease out the coal in the Otter Creek tracts. I keep hearing proposals on how the coal is to be used but there still is not an operational coal mine there.
A little hint Gov. Brian Schweitzer, to utilize the coal in the Otter Creek tracts, you have to have an operational coal mine. An operational coal mine requires you to lease these tracts out for development. Since you are on the Land Board, maybe you should do something about this Governor. Then maybe we can consider what to do with the coal. Trying to have a use for the coal before there is a mine in operation is like putting the cart before the horse, it just doesn't work.
I'm not convinced this new proposal is a good one or not. I don't know enough about it. I would just like to see the state lease the tracts out so there would be some kind of movement on the ground. Then we can worry about maybe using the coal in state instead of shipping it to the East Coast. One step at a time though. The tracts need leased first.
If you're climbing the ladder of life, you go rung by rung, one step at a time. Don't look too far up, set your goals high but take one step at a time. Sometimes you don't think you're progressing until you step back and see how high you've really gone. Donny Osmond
Why is it necessary to transport the coal almost 500 miles from Ashland to Butte to do this? Why can't they build the plant at Ashland and save all the expense of moving the coal? I wonder if the carbon cost of moving this coal is figured into the calculations of this plant?
In no way am I sold on this coal to gas to algae to ethanol idea this dude, William Bruce, is proposing. It sounds awful far fetched to me. It might work, I don't know. I would just like to know why Butte instead of closer to the coal like Ashland.
I would also like to know when the Governor is going to actually lease out the coal in the Otter Creek tracts. I keep hearing proposals on how the coal is to be used but there still is not an operational coal mine there.
A little hint Gov. Brian Schweitzer, to utilize the coal in the Otter Creek tracts, you have to have an operational coal mine. An operational coal mine requires you to lease these tracts out for development. Since you are on the Land Board, maybe you should do something about this Governor. Then maybe we can consider what to do with the coal. Trying to have a use for the coal before there is a mine in operation is like putting the cart before the horse, it just doesn't work.
I'm not convinced this new proposal is a good one or not. I don't know enough about it. I would just like to see the state lease the tracts out so there would be some kind of movement on the ground. Then we can worry about maybe using the coal in state instead of shipping it to the East Coast. One step at a time though. The tracts need leased first.
If you're climbing the ladder of life, you go rung by rung, one step at a time. Don't look too far up, set your goals high but take one step at a time. Sometimes you don't think you're progressing until you step back and see how high you've really gone. Donny Osmond
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Gov. Schweitzer, Government, Montana Politics
at
06:26
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Monday, November 19. 2007
Life Rope?
"We threw them a life rope," he said. "They said 'We don't want any life ropes.' That's what their position is."
Bullshit!!!!! The Governor didn't throw a life rope for God's sake. He threw an unworkable proposal that was designed to take our focus away from the real issue. How to control brucellosis in the wildlife under the Federal governments control. His proposal was a band aid designed to make people feel like he was doing something so he would look good. Now this comment leaves him looking like a pouting little kid who didn't get his way. Glad to see he is dropping th ill-conceived plan thought.
Now will he put as much effort into solving the problem or will he ignore it in hopes it will go away? I know which I think he will do.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull. W. C. Fields
Wednesday, November 7. 2007
No Split State
I see the Board of Livestock has decided against split state status for Brucellosis here in Montana. The Governor decided to let the ranching community decide and they let their feelings be known to the Board of Livestock yesterday.
I kind of have to laugh, the Governor said he would let the ranching community decide but then complains when they do.
Whether people like it or not, the Stockgrowers represent a large portion of the ranching community so they had a legitimate role in this whole thing, just like the Montana Cattlemans Association (MCA) did who was on the opposite side and wanted split state status. I really hate to tell the MCA, but I have personally spoken to quite a few memebers of MCA and most of them opposed sp[lit state status even though MCA was for it. People can be part of an orginazation and have an opinion other than the one the organization wants them to have.
Now that this is behind us, we need to miove forward and figure out how to control the brucellosis problem in Yellowstone National Park. There is no easy answers for it but they need to be found.
There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer. Gertrude Stein
After hours of rancorous debate punctuated by yelling and boos from the audience, the Montana Board of Livestock on Tuesday stepped away from a plan to split Montana into two zones to manage a dreaded cattle disease.
On a 6-1 vote, the seven-member panel that governs the Montana Department of Livestock decided to pursue other ways of preventing the spread of brucellosis from infected bison and elk in Yellowstone National Park into Montana's neighboring cattle.
I kind of have to laugh, the Governor said he would let the ranching community decide but then complains when they do.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer said the decision represented "misinformation" spread by the lobbyist of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. The group's lobbyist ought to be personally blamed when or if another case brucellosis comes up and all of Montana is saddled with the stiffer restrictions that brucellosis brings, the governor said.
"They were misled by the lobbyist of Montana Stockgrowers Association," he said of the outspoken group of ranchers who testified at Tuesday's meeting. "They were given faulty information by the lobbyist who knew it would get people excited."
Errol Rice, executive director of the Montana Stockgrowers Association and one of the group's registered lobbyists, applauded the board's decision to stand up to Schweitzer, who appointed five of the board's seven members.
"The industry spoke today, and the board grudgingly put to rest the governor's marching orders," Rice said.
Whether people like it or not, the Stockgrowers represent a large portion of the ranching community so they had a legitimate role in this whole thing, just like the Montana Cattlemans Association (MCA) did who was on the opposite side and wanted split state status. I really hate to tell the MCA, but I have personally spoken to quite a few memebers of MCA and most of them opposed sp[lit state status even though MCA was for it. People can be part of an orginazation and have an opinion other than the one the organization wants them to have.
Now that this is behind us, we need to miove forward and figure out how to control the brucellosis problem in Yellowstone National Park. There is no easy answers for it but they need to be found.
There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer. Gertrude Stein
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Cattle Buisness, Gov. Schweitzer, Montana Politics
at
06:56
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Monday, October 8. 2007
Told You So
I told you the other day that Gov. Brian Schweitzer knew he couldn't help the Morgans and Karen but just didn't want to tell them to their face. Today's article about the situation just confirms that.
I'm fully convinced the Governor knew this going into the meeting but just didn't want to have to tell the Morgans that. I can understand not wanting to give people bad news to their face, but the Governor should have been a man and gave them the real facts at the meeting instead of leaving them dangle.
Something else interesting in the article. If the state reimburses somebody for a brucellosis infected herd, the Feds just reduce the amount they pay by the amount the states pay.
So in a way you can't fault the Governor for all of this. The Feds have it set up to hobble the states in this. Even if Montana were to set up a special fund to pay ranchers for their loss, the Feds would just pay less for the herd so the rancher would get less. As usual the Government gets you coming and going.
I said from the very beginning of this, how much do you pay for a herd of cows? How do you value it? How do you value the intangibles like good breeding that you have been working on for years? By market value they got a fair price.
But, like Sandy Morgan says:
When all this happened it is not the time of year somebody would liquidate their herd so it's hard to compare the price they received with true market value of the herd, but again I ask, how can you value the intangibles fairly? Was Karen's intangible value more or less than the Morgan's and should one or the other receive more money for their cows? Tough questions if you ask me.
I guess I turn my thoughts back to another point I made in the very beginning. Why is it necessary to slaughter the whole herd for a few infected animals? Why couldn't we just get rid of the infected animals and do follow up monitoring on the rest of the herd that was all ready vaccinated for Brucellosis? There was only I believe 6 cows in the herd infected. That's all the loss would have been as long as no other critters showed up. Why slaughter a whole herd when it isn't necessary is beyond me. Slaughtering a whole herd is not how Brucellosis was wiped out in the state. Getting rid of infected animals and retesting herds is how Montana became brucellosis free. Why can't the same strategy be used now? This dumb cowboy will never know.
The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief. Jacques Ellul
A Bridger ranching family that had to slaughter all its stock because of a cattle disease won't get additional money from the state as reimbursement.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Friday that he cannot legally give the couple any state money.
"I am not sure how I can indemnify them beyond what they've already been paid," Schweitzer said.
I'm fully convinced the Governor knew this going into the meeting but just didn't want to have to tell the Morgans that. I can understand not wanting to give people bad news to their face, but the Governor should have been a man and gave them the real facts at the meeting instead of leaving them dangle.
Something else interesting in the article. If the state reimburses somebody for a brucellosis infected herd, the Feds just reduce the amount they pay by the amount the states pay.
There is a catch: If a state chooses to pay a rancher some money for the loss of a herd, APHIS will subtract that amount from the sum the agency offers, said Marty Zaluski, the Montana state veterinarian.
So in a way you can't fault the Governor for all of this. The Feds have it set up to hobble the states in this. Even if Montana were to set up a special fund to pay ranchers for their loss, the Feds would just pay less for the herd so the rancher would get less. As usual the Government gets you coming and going.
I said from the very beginning of this, how much do you pay for a herd of cows? How do you value it? How do you value the intangibles like good breeding that you have been working on for years? By market value they got a fair price.
The amount the Morgans received works out to about $1,600 per cow-calf pair.
That same week, similar cow-calf pairs sold for $1,300, according to information from the Billings Livestock Commission.
But, like Sandy Morgan says:
But that comparison isn't fair, Sandy Morgan said. Typically, ranchers sell their calves in October or November. They don't sell quality cows nor quality calves in the middle of the summer.
When all this happened it is not the time of year somebody would liquidate their herd so it's hard to compare the price they received with true market value of the herd, but again I ask, how can you value the intangibles fairly? Was Karen's intangible value more or less than the Morgan's and should one or the other receive more money for their cows? Tough questions if you ask me.
I guess I turn my thoughts back to another point I made in the very beginning. Why is it necessary to slaughter the whole herd for a few infected animals? Why couldn't we just get rid of the infected animals and do follow up monitoring on the rest of the herd that was all ready vaccinated for Brucellosis? There was only I believe 6 cows in the herd infected. That's all the loss would have been as long as no other critters showed up. Why slaughter a whole herd when it isn't necessary is beyond me. Slaughtering a whole herd is not how Brucellosis was wiped out in the state. Getting rid of infected animals and retesting herds is how Montana became brucellosis free. Why can't the same strategy be used now? This dumb cowboy will never know.
The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief. Jacques Ellul
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Cattle, Montana Politics, US Politics
at
06:25
| Comments (4)
| Trackbacks (0)
Wednesday, October 3. 2007
Curiosity
I would be really curious to know how much of my tax money the Governor has convinced the Air Force to spend on this Coal to Fuel project at Malmstrom. Why is it necessary for the Air Force to get into making fuel? I know planes take a lot of fuel but is it really necessary for them to make their own at a base they keep pulling flying missions from?
The Governor states that "the carbon dioxide generated by the process could be injected into the ground in Eastern Montana oil fields to enhance oil recovery." I note the big could in this statement. In politics that means it's probable not going happen but lets assume it does. How are they going to transport and inject this CO2 into the ground? How much CO2 does a plant this size produce? How big of a headache is transporting this stuff going to be? Some interesting questions.
More questions. Is the Air Force going to sell this fuel on the open market or transport it to other military bases? If they keep it for military use, how much will this fuel cost by the time they transport it to somewhere where they can use it? I'm not to sure about this CTL scheme the Air Force seems to be thinking of. Just doesn't seem to fit with their mission statement. Just because they have the land and money doesn't make it right for them to spend our tax money on it. If CTL is such a blessing for our country and our world it shouldn't take our tax money to get it started.
Before you do anything, you need to know if it's right or wrong. Andy Lau
The Governor states that "the carbon dioxide generated by the process could be injected into the ground in Eastern Montana oil fields to enhance oil recovery." I note the big could in this statement. In politics that means it's probable not going happen but lets assume it does. How are they going to transport and inject this CO2 into the ground? How much CO2 does a plant this size produce? How big of a headache is transporting this stuff going to be? Some interesting questions.
More questions. Is the Air Force going to sell this fuel on the open market or transport it to other military bases? If they keep it for military use, how much will this fuel cost by the time they transport it to somewhere where they can use it? I'm not to sure about this CTL scheme the Air Force seems to be thinking of. Just doesn't seem to fit with their mission statement. Just because they have the land and money doesn't make it right for them to spend our tax money on it. If CTL is such a blessing for our country and our world it shouldn't take our tax money to get it started.
Before you do anything, you need to know if it's right or wrong. Andy Lau
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Gov. Schweitzer, Military
at
06:25
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: air force, coal to fuel, ctl, Gov. Brian Schwei, government, malmstrom, taxes
Tuesday, October 2. 2007
Buffer Zone
As you may or may not know, Gov. Brian Schweitzer has proposed a buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park as an answer to the Brucellosis problem in the Park. I give him credit for trying to do something about the situation but I don't really think a buffer zone is the answer.
It doesn't look like North and South Dakota really like the idea either.
If this buffer zone is not acceptable to other states, what good is it doing us? None. I really think the buffer zone idea is dead in the water and needs to be thrown out. Placing the burden of Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park on the few producers who would fall in the area is wrong. The burden of Brucellosis needs to be on the Federal government who controls the livestock, bison, where the problem resides.
The Feds need to get the Brucellosis under control in the Bison and they need to reduce the numbers of Bison in the park to control them wandering out of the Park. I find it interesting that if I as a private individual over graze my grass, environmentalist will scream bloody murder and want me to stop over grazing. If the Bison do it in YNP the environmentalist scream bloody murder that the Bison don't have more public lands to graze on. They don't seem to care about the over grazing. Interesting, isn't it.
A propensity to hope and joy is real riches; one to fear and sorrow real poverty. David Hume
It doesn't look like North and South Dakota really like the idea either.
North Dakota does not recognize split-state status due to monitoring problems of the cattle coming from the state in this class. “Who monitors that?” Keller asked. “We need assurance that there are no violations with the movement of breeding cattle across that state.”
This concern was also addressed by Dr. Sam Holland, South Dakota state veterinarian. “It's hard enough with the state geographical boundaries as they are now,” he said. “A split-state status multiplies this difficulty and puts the cattle producers of South Dakota at risk.”
If this buffer zone is not acceptable to other states, what good is it doing us? None. I really think the buffer zone idea is dead in the water and needs to be thrown out. Placing the burden of Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park on the few producers who would fall in the area is wrong. The burden of Brucellosis needs to be on the Federal government who controls the livestock, bison, where the problem resides.
The Feds need to get the Brucellosis under control in the Bison and they need to reduce the numbers of Bison in the park to control them wandering out of the Park. I find it interesting that if I as a private individual over graze my grass, environmentalist will scream bloody murder and want me to stop over grazing. If the Bison do it in YNP the environmentalist scream bloody murder that the Bison don't have more public lands to graze on. They don't seem to care about the over grazing. Interesting, isn't it.
A propensity to hope and joy is real riches; one to fear and sorrow real poverty. David Hume
Friday, September 21. 2007
Sour Grapes
The Montana Stockgrowers Association has a little beef with Gov. Schweitzer. How much of there problem with him is real and how much is sour grapes I'm not sure. It used to be members of the Montana Stockgrowers dominated the Livestock board but nowadays they don't so I think some sour grapes is involved.
For the record I don't like the Governor's idea for a "brucellosis buffer zone" around Yellowstone National Park. It's not a good answer for the Fed's problem. Also for the record I can believe that the Governor is putting pressure on the board. That is his style of leading.
I still think the Stockgrowers are showing some sour grapes here. Whining that the Governor is strong arming the livestock board just shows weakness. Show your strength and fight him head on.
It's human nature to gripe, but I'm going ahead and doing the best I can. Elvis Presley
For the record I don't like the Governor's idea for a "brucellosis buffer zone" around Yellowstone National Park. It's not a good answer for the Fed's problem. Also for the record I can believe that the Governor is putting pressure on the board. That is his style of leading.
I still think the Stockgrowers are showing some sour grapes here. Whining that the Governor is strong arming the livestock board just shows weakness. Show your strength and fight him head on.
It's human nature to gripe, but I'm going ahead and doing the best I can. Elvis Presley
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Cattle Buisness, Disasters, Gov. Schweitzer
at
07:23
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Monday, September 3. 2007
Blame Game
When Gov. Brian Schweitzer announced a special session to pay for the fire fighting costs this year, the Montana Blogs started up. Depending on which blog you read, either the Republicans or the Democrats were to blame for this and that was the end of the story. As normal I didn't believe either side since they were only swinging for political advantage. Now I see a story that does tell a little more.
Plenty of blame with session
So it turns our neither side budgeted enough so both are to blame. I know both the left and the right will argue with the above stated positions but it's the truth. Let's quit playing the blame game and get the job done. Everybody and their dog knows that fire seasons have been getting worse so why not try to budget enough for them instead of ignoring the situation in hopes it will go away. If both sides would have done the job right in the first place they wouldn't need to be spending my money for this special session to fix the problem.
Just so this is clear, the Republicans and the Democrats in the Legislature did not budget enough money for fire fighting and neither did Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The costs for this year are all ready higher than than all concerned budgeted for two years. Quit pointing fingers and fix the problem.
You don't fix the problem until you define it. John W. Snow
Plenty of blame with session
f you're a hard-core Democrat, the story behind this week's legislative special session goes like this: Gov. Brian Schweitzer this year wisely tried to set aside an extra $19 million to combat wildfires, but Republicans in the Legislature cut out the money.
If you're a devoted Republican, the story reads like this: Republicans tried to budget an extra $10 million for firefighting during the Legislature, but Democrats diverted that money on the last day to hire more tax collectors.
As in all things political, neither narrative is exactly right - nor exactly wrong. The more pertinent question might be, "What difference does it make?" And the answer is, not much.
No matter which political side had its way on firefighting funds during the regular legislative session this spring, it's quite likely we'd still find ourselves in a special session.
As of last week, the state had already run up a $35 million bill for fighting fires just this year - way more than either side had proposed to set aside for the next two years.
So it turns our neither side budgeted enough so both are to blame. I know both the left and the right will argue with the above stated positions but it's the truth. Let's quit playing the blame game and get the job done. Everybody and their dog knows that fire seasons have been getting worse so why not try to budget enough for them instead of ignoring the situation in hopes it will go away. If both sides would have done the job right in the first place they wouldn't need to be spending my money for this special session to fix the problem.
Just so this is clear, the Republicans and the Democrats in the Legislature did not budget enough money for fire fighting and neither did Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The costs for this year are all ready higher than than all concerned budgeted for two years. Quit pointing fingers and fix the problem.
You don't fix the problem until you define it. John W. Snow
Posted by Sarpy Sam
in Gov. Schweitzer, Legislature 2007, Montana Politics
at
06:38
| Comment (1)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: blame, blame game, democrats, gov. brian schwei, montana, republicans, special session
Thursday, August 16. 2007
Defense
I find Gov. Brian Schweitzer's defense of Republican criticism about the way he hired a new intern very interesting. Schweitzer never says what he did was right, he just points out, that in his opinion, a earlier Republican did the same thing so why should they criticize? So, two wrongs in this case make a right? I don't think so.
The Governor was really big the whole Legislative session about the budget and only doing things that are budgeted for correctly. Why the 180 degree turn on budgeting when it comes to this one intern? Why is her willing to bypass the normally budgeting procedure for this, and nothing else? As a citizen of the state I would really like to know. Don't cloud the issue by pointing your finger like a little child and saying "he did it first." Stand up like a man and defend your actions. It's the right thing to do.
The time is always right to do what is right. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Governor was really big the whole Legislative session about the budget and only doing things that are budgeted for correctly. Why the 180 degree turn on budgeting when it comes to this one intern? Why is her willing to bypass the normally budgeting procedure for this, and nothing else? As a citizen of the state I would really like to know. Don't cloud the issue by pointing your finger like a little child and saying "he did it first." Stand up like a man and defend your actions. It's the right thing to do.
The time is always right to do what is right. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Thursday, July 5. 2007
Buffer Zone
Officials discuss brucellosis buffer
I have never been very keen on the idea of a "buffer zone" around the park but I see it appears to be gaining traction. As usual, I am missing something here though.
The discovery of seven cows with Brucellosis in the Bridger area is what led to this talk between APHIS and Gov. Brian Schweitzer about the buffer zone. Now while there is a connection between the Bridger ranch where the Brucellosis was found and a ranch in the proposed buffer zone, the Bridger ranch would not have fallen in the buffer zone being proposed. Therefore this buffer zone would not have helped one bit with the Brucellosis problem Montana finds itself in. In fact, if the buffer zone where in place, it would still be Brucellosis free, while the state of Montana would still be under the threat of losing its Brucellosis free status at any moment.
HOW IN TARNATION DOES THAT HELP US IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM? There is no proof that the Brucellosis started from any cattle that would be in the buffer zone so why are we using this scapegoat to set up a buffer zone? Why don't we discuss with APHIS the cleaning up of Brucellosis in the Park instead of looking at a Band-Aid idea that isn't going to solve anything and just diverts us from discussing the real problem, Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park? Where did I miss the memo that decided this stupid course of action?
This whole buffer zone idea just diverts us from the real problem of Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park. Why not have discussions about that instead of the buffer zone with APHIS? Too logical I guess. Diverting attention from the real problem does not solve the problem, it just extends the problem out so it never gets fixed. This just shows how the officials involved don't want to fix the problem, they just want to cover it up.
Any fool knows that bravado is always a cover-up for insecurity. That's the truth. Bobby Darin
Creating a brucellosis buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park is a possibility as state and federal officials look for ways to keep the disease from recurring in Montana.
Teresa Howes, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said she and the federal agency's top veterinarian discussed the idea with Gov. Brian Schweitzer last month.
"We were encouraged, all of us, by the thought that that could be a way for Montana to go," she said Monday.
Schweitzer has pushed the idea of a brucellosis buffer zone for more than two years, and the idea is gaining ground after the disease, which causes pregnant cows to abort their calves, was found in May in a Bridger cattle herd. It was the first Montana outbreak since 1985.
I have never been very keen on the idea of a "buffer zone" around the park but I see it appears to be gaining traction. As usual, I am missing something here though.
The discovery of seven cows with Brucellosis in the Bridger area is what led to this talk between APHIS and Gov. Brian Schweitzer about the buffer zone. Now while there is a connection between the Bridger ranch where the Brucellosis was found and a ranch in the proposed buffer zone, the Bridger ranch would not have fallen in the buffer zone being proposed. Therefore this buffer zone would not have helped one bit with the Brucellosis problem Montana finds itself in. In fact, if the buffer zone where in place, it would still be Brucellosis free, while the state of Montana would still be under the threat of losing its Brucellosis free status at any moment.
HOW IN TARNATION DOES THAT HELP US IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM? There is no proof that the Brucellosis started from any cattle that would be in the buffer zone so why are we using this scapegoat to set up a buffer zone? Why don't we discuss with APHIS the cleaning up of Brucellosis in the Park instead of looking at a Band-Aid idea that isn't going to solve anything and just diverts us from discussing the real problem, Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park? Where did I miss the memo that decided this stupid course of action?
This whole buffer zone idea just diverts us from the real problem of Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park. Why not have discussions about that instead of the buffer zone with APHIS? Too logical I guess. Diverting attention from the real problem does not solve the problem, it just extends the problem out so it never gets fixed. This just shows how the officials involved don't want to fix the problem, they just want to cover it up.
Any fool knows that bravado is always a cover-up for insecurity. That's the truth. Bobby Darin
Posted by
in Cattle
at
06:20
| Comments (3)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: aphis, brucellosis, buffer zone, gov. brian schwei, stupidity, yellowstone natio
Friday, June 22. 2007
Regionalize
As you know, Gov. Brian Schweitzer wants to regionalize the Brucellosis problem in Montana and make a perimeter around Yellowstone National Park where Brucellosis would be monitored and treated differently than in the rest of the state. I was never very sure about the idea but I listened and wondered about the whole idea of regionalizing a disease problem like this. Some people have claimed it's not good and that made me wonder but I've kept my council.
Now a story about regionalizing a disease has come to my attention and brings things into sharper focus for me.
USCA opposes plan to regionalize beef trade
"I see said the blind man" as the old saying goes. I now understand the regionalization issue better and why maybe it isn't a good idea. I really think the Governor needs to rethink this issue. I don't think regionalization of disease is going to go over good outside of Montana so that will make the whole thing useless. We live in bigger world than just here in Montana and the whole idea has to be acceptable not just to Montanans, but cattle producer and health experts everywhere and this story indicates to tme that it might not be. Animal health is too big of issue to play with in most peoples minds so regionalizing it doesn't appear to be a good idea.
I never said I had no idea about most of the things you said I said I had no idea about. Elliott Abrams
Now a story about regionalizing a disease has come to my attention and brings things into sharper focus for me.
USCA opposes plan to regionalize beef trade
In a letter sent on June 19 to the Senate Finance Committee, the U.S. Cattlemen's Association (USCA) made it clear that opposing regionalization of Argentina, related to animal health disease issues for import purposes, is one of the organization's "top member-driven policy issues."
USCA urged Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, to "strongly oppose any attempt to weaken oversight or regulation of trade with Argentina."
Despite widespread problems with foot and mouth disease (FMD), a highly contagious infection that can destroy entire cattle herds, Argentina has proposed a plan to export beef to the United States from certain regions.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently considering adoption of the proposal to relax restrictions on Argentine beef from some areas by regionalizing trade areas.
"I see said the blind man" as the old saying goes. I now understand the regionalization issue better and why maybe it isn't a good idea. I really think the Governor needs to rethink this issue. I don't think regionalization of disease is going to go over good outside of Montana so that will make the whole thing useless. We live in bigger world than just here in Montana and the whole idea has to be acceptable not just to Montanans, but cattle producer and health experts everywhere and this story indicates to tme that it might not be. Animal health is too big of issue to play with in most peoples minds so regionalizing it doesn't appear to be a good idea.
I never said I had no idea about most of the things you said I said I had no idea about. Elliott Abrams
(Page 1 of 4, totaling 52 entries)
next page »