Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

Don't you just love when people change the sequence of events in history to make their cause look so wonderful? Since Left in The West doesn't allow comments anymore unless registered, I guess they can't stand to hear dissent, I will have to dispute this piece here.

Basically the story is about how the All Mighty Jon Tester is to be worshiped for his part in passing SB 415, which requires us in Montana to buy power from renewable energy, and the booming success of the Judith Gap Wind farm. The problem is, Jon Tester and his bill had no part in this wind farms success.

Here you will find I commented on just this issue. It seems while SB 415 was still being debated and no mandate for renewable energy was in place, when this wind farm in Judith Gap was all ready being developed and was negotiating to sell its power to the local power company.

So, what hand does Jon Tester play in the development of this wind farm as advocated over at Left in The West?

ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!! People need to wake up and smell the horse shit. Just because they think we need to worship on the alter of Schweitzer/Tester doesn't mean they need to alter history. The Republicans are handing them the alter by their poor practices so the lying is not necessary. People will worship with them without the lying. Grow up.

The trouble with lying and deceiving is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide. Hannah Arendt

Well, we found out what "as soon as possible" means to the Democrats in the Senate now haven't we. I told everybody not to get to excited about a seat on the Appropriations Committee for Jon Tester. Politicians are to slippery to take at their word. This whole thing is really just funnier than hell to me. The Democrats of the state were all excited about it and now have to make excuses why it didn't happen.

Ideas are elusive, slippery things. Best to keep a pad of paper and a pencil at your bedside, so you can stab them during the night before they get away. Earl Nightingale

Unlicensed Tester butchered neighbor's animals, wasn't cited

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jon Tester never had a state-required license for the butchering business he ran at his Big Sandy-area farm, but state records show an inspector visited the shop, but did not cite Tester for breaking the law.

Tester cut meat on an outbuilding on his family farm beginning in the late 1970s. He took the butcher business over from his father, Tester said, who first started cutting meat in the family's basement in the 1950s to make extra money. Tester took the business over after he and his wife assumed the family farm, he said, and realized they couldn't make enough money farming.

Sorry, I might not be a fan of Tester but this is nothing. One Neighbor helping out others, even if money changed hands, is the Montana way of doing things and is no big deal. Being visited by inspectors and never being ticketed again is not a surprise. Sounds like the way I am used to things being done in Montana. The only weird thing here is Jon's decision to close down the business when he ran for State Senate. Being as a Montana legislator is a part time job, they meet for 90 days every other year and get paid peanuts, you would think he could be able to keep it open. Did he know he was breaking the law and that was the reason for getting out of the buisness? I doubt it, but it's still curious.

You want much ado about something, here it is.

Abramoff friend describes Burns staff's ties to lobbyist

A Republican media consultant and friend of indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff recently wrote a letter to a Montana newspaper saying Burns' staff ate so many free meals at Abramoff's restaurant, people joked they would have "starved to death" without the lobbyist.

"Frankly, it was widely viewed in D.C. that Mr. Abramoff effectively exerted implicit control over Mr. Burns whenever he and his team needed to get something accomplished," reads the letter, which was sent to the Whitefish Pilot last week.

Now this is a lot more damning than the claims against Tester. I will point out that just because Burns's staff cozied up to Abramoff doesn't mean Burns himself did. The implication is there and the appearance of impropriety is there which really makes it hard to doubt, but a does not always equal b so who knows. This is something of significance though where the Tester claims are smoke.

Politics, much ado about nothing.

Take our politicians: they're a bunch of yo-yos. The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize. Saul Bellow

Tester Would Boost Budget by $89.4 Billion, Burns by $1.2 Billion, NTUF Study of Candidates' Platforms Shows

As Montana Senate candidates Jon Tester and Conrad Burns court voters down the final campaign stretch, taxpayers can look to their platforms for real distinctions: that's the assessment of a study released today by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which found that roughly $88 billion separates the federal budget agendas of the candidates.

"Scripted debates and political platitudes abound during most campaigns, but voters still care about the bottom line, their tax dollars," said NTUF Senior Policy Analyst and study author Demian Brady. "Now citizens have hard data to evaluate the candidates' stances on federal spending."

In preparing his analysis, Brady used the campaign websites and news reports of the two leading contenders in the Montana U.S. Senate race to gather information on proposals that could impact federal spending. He then verified these items against independent sources like the Congressional Budget Office. Brady also cross-checked items through NTUF's BillTally system, which since 1991 has computed a net annual agenda for Members of Congress based on their sponsorship of bills. Among the findings:

-- State Sen. Jon Tester has offered a total of 26 separate proposals that would affect federal spending, 9 of which would raise federal outlays and only one of which would reduce them: a bill to re-import prescription drugs from Canada that the government scores as a $220 million savings. If enacted simultaneously, these items would result in a net overall annual spending hike of $89.4 billion (16 provisions have an indeterminate price).

-- Sen. Conrad Burns's agenda of 11 budget-related items constitutes a net yearly spending increase of at least $1.2 billion, driven by his support for medical malpractice and health insurance reform that would result in $931 million of yearly taxpayer savings. Like Tester, Burns's blueprint has proposals whose cost cannot be identified (a total of three), though Brady notes that four of Burns's 11 policies would drive outlays upward.

To start with I'm sure the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) has an agenda it's following. They say they are non-partisan and I don't have time to delve into it. I take no responsibility for the agenda of what is being reported.

They do bring up a very good point though. Jon Tester has been beating on Burns for not balancing the federal budget and spending "like a drunken sailor" but I've never heard how he plans on fixing the budget problems if he were elected. He has all these ideas on how to spend more of our taxpayer money but he never says where the money for his ideas is going to come from.

Shouldn't he inform us of how he is going to raise this money for his plans? Shouldn't he tell us how he plans on balancing the budget? At least Burns makes no bones that he is spending money and the budget is screwed up. A person might not like the position but he has the gonads to stand up and tell us the truth.

I would like to see some truth out of Jon Tester on this one. How are you going to pay for for an additional $89.4 billion dollars in spending you have proposed? The truth sir, not mealy mouthed platitudes, I would appreciate it.

The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives. Albert Einstein

The large majority of left facing blogs in Montana are near orgasm over the news today.

Leaders promises Tester a seat on appropriations

Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate say they will give Jon Tester a seat on the influential Senate Appropriations Committee as soon as they can if he beats Republican incumbent Conrad Burns in the November election.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement Thursday he will "work very hard" to secure a seat for Tester - even as a freshman senator - "as soon as possible."

Personally I don't see what the excitement is all about. If I were a Tester sycophant, I would need a definition of "as soon as possible" before I would get too excited. "As soon as possible" might mean 4 years from now for all we know. Politicians are known for being slippery with the exact words they use so I would be careful. But, they don't see that, they just see the news they want to see.

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. Milton Friedman

In Montana's Senate Race, Jon Tester keeps portraying himself as fiscally conservative and wanting to balance the Federal budget. He continually blasts Sen Burns for cutting taxes and spending money that the country doesn't have. Now Tester has all kinds of ideas on how to spend money, extending CHIPS to all children, but I have never heard him once say how he would balance the budget. He never talks about raising taxes or cutting spending to get the deficit under control, just criticizes Burns for not doing it while proposing spending increases by the Federal government. I've really wondered about all of this since it doesn't really add up. Now, what do I see today?

Tester proposes homeowner tax break

State Sen. Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, in front of the James and Catherine Bentler home in Billings on Wednesday, outlined federal tax proposals to help homeowners, college students and families.

Tester is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate opposing U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who is running for his fourth term. Libertarian Stan Jones of Bozeman is also on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

Tester said his "Real Tax Relief" plan would provide targeted property tax relief from the federal government, "an idea that has never been tried in Washington." He said the importance of the idea is that it is fair and benefits Montana families and homeowners.

So, Tester wants to cut taxes and increase spending as his platform for getting into the Senate. Doesn't this just sound like Sen Burns's strategy? I'll admit, the tax breaks are different from the ones Burns supports but the strategy is the same. How does this help balance the Federal budget like Tester has been campaigning on? I wish somebody could answer this for me but I'm sure the Tester fanatics out there will just ignore me.

I find the one tax break very interesting.

* Establish a 5 percent tax credit for life for any honorably discharged service member.

As a disclaimer, I will admit this is one that would benefit me personally if they grandfather in anybody that has ever served, but why should a person get this for service to their country? What makes them so special? I served my country for two reasons, one is for the education that was offered and the other was because it was the right thing to do. I am very proud of my service to my country and what I did for my country. I have never asked for any special treatment for this service and I don't think veterans should receive any, unless they were injured while in the service, for their service. I know, I am in the minority on this opinion but pandering to the veterans this way to me demeans their service.

Sorry, I got off track. My whole point here is that Jon Tester is following Conrad Burns right down the same path. Reduce taxes while increasing spending. How does this help Montanans or the country? The short answer is, it doesn't. People need to remember this.

There are three principles in a man's being and life, the principle of thought, the principle of speech, and the principle of action. Martin Buber

A big part of Sen. Conrad Burns re-election campign, is how he delivers money to the state with his senority and how if Tester were elected, it wouldn't happen. So, how is Conrad's latest effort to bring the bacon home going?

Senate leaders turn back Conrad disaster bill

The third time was not a charm as Senate Republican leaders once again blocked efforts by a bipartisan group of farm-state senators to provide assistance to farmers and ranchers hammered by weather disasters in 2005 and 2006.

“A fair vote has been denied here in the Senate and the party in power has turned its back on American farmers,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. Conrad and Conrad Burns, R-Mont., Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and other senators introduced two other emergency assistance bills for 2005 and 2006 that have not become law.

“This fight is far from over,” said Conrad, a member of the Agriculture Committee, following the action or lack of action in the Senate on Thursday. “I won’t stand by and let this be swept under the rug. The livelihoods of thousands of farm families are at stake.”

You Bet, that seniority is really helping out now isn't it.

This indicates to me that the Senate leadership has effectively written off Sen. Burns as a lost cause. If they were serious about a Republican holding the seat they would be at least considering the disaster aid since it would help Burns in his race.

Now, let's be truthful, Jon Tester would not be able to do any better on this issue so It's really not a positive point for him, just a negative point for Burns. If Tester is elected he definitely wouldn't have the seniority and clout to do anything about the disaster aid. This just goes to show that the Seniority idea, that Burns keeps touting, isn't all it is cracked up to be. It might help some but it isn't a magic wand that will solve all the problems a Senator faces. Poor Conrad, nothing is breaking very good for him this year.

The only real influence I've ever had was myself. Edward Hopper

Jon Tester's spiel about a living wage in today's Gazette bothers me a little.

All Montanans are encouraged by our state's recent surge of economic expansion. After more than a decade of stagnation, unemployment is down, per capita income is up and regions of Montana are experiencing rapid economic growth.

But if you take a closer look at the numbers, or visit areas of Montana outside these regions of prosperity, you see a very different picture. Montana is near or at the bottom of numerous economic indicators, be it per capita income, average weekly wages or the number of Montanans who work more than one job just to make ends meet. Montanans are entitled to ask what our leaders in Washington are doing to ensure they can work the kinds of jobs that will allow them to participate in the American dream. Sadly, the answer is: not much. It's time for a change.

He criticizes Sen Burns for voting against raising the minimum wage 11 times. Fine, I will believe that number without a problem, but when a raise in the national minimum wage was brought up before Congress recently the Democrats themselves rejected it. You can whine and complain about the linkage of the minimum wage and estate tax all you want. but the facts are the Democrats, like Jon Tester, turned back the minimum wage increase.

Second, if Montana is in such desperate straits, and has been for years according to Tester, why didn't Jon Tester sponsor and support a minimum wage bill for the people of Montana while he was in the Legislature? Why wait until now? The states can set their own minimum wage so there is no need for him to wait until he is running for US Senate to do this. He should have tried to raise the minimum wage in the most recent legislature. He lauds his supposed success on the health care issue but doesn't talk at all about doing anything statewide about the minimum wage. This is deceitful and disingenuous. I would expect better from a man campaigning for change in Washington, but that's not the way of politics in Montana, Democrat or Republican.

Flagrant money corruption, deceitful communication of public plans and purposes, shocking incompetence - take your pick, all are involved. None are new to American politics, but they are potently fused in the present circumstances. William Greider

Candidate participation is abysmal — again

Once again, the majority of Montana legislative candidates have ignored the public interest and failed to participate in the survey conducted by the nonpartisan Project Vote Smart.

And for the first time in the past three election cycles, one of Montana's statewide candidates — Democratic Senate nominee Jon Tester — also chose not to participate.

I am really quite surprised by this. The hype I read all over about Jon Tester would lead me to believe that this populist man would openly answer the questions and state his views. By not doing so it makes a person wonder why. A big blunder on his part. I can't wait to see the defense of this blunder by his fans or will they just ignore it. We'll find out.

Hide nothing, for time, which sees all and hears all, exposes all. Sophocles

I have not commented on the latest cow with BSE in Canada because testing caught it and it was an older cow born before the 1997 feed ban. In a way the whole BSE thing has become a non issue to the public and with other things going on I didn't say anything.

Now R-Calf has come out with it's take on the situation and I share parts of it here.

Latest BSE Case Shows Canadian BSE Problem Worse Than First Thought

The Canadian government confirmed another positive case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) on July 4, 2006. Canada’s total reported BSE cases now number eight – one detected in a cow imported from Great Britain in 1993 and seven detected in native-born Canadian cattle.

“It is clear that Canada’s BSE problem is making it more difficult for U.S. beef to get back into the markets of South Korea and Japan,” said R-CALF USA President Chuck Kiker. “We need to be able to differentiate high-quality U.S. beef from Canadian beef to gain full resumption of U.S. exports. I hope that President Bush will ask the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make this important policy change. I also ask the President to urge Canadian Prime Minister Harper to increase BSE testing and take other mitigation measures to get this problem under control,” Kiker continued.

South Korea recently informed the U.S. that it was delaying the resumption of imports of U.S. beef because it was concerned that the U.S. was commingling Canadian beef with U.S. beef.

I've talked about the South Korea situation and Canada so I won't belabor the point here. American producers are being screwed over by the USDA in favor of Canadian producers for no apparent reason other than to benefit the Meat Packers. This just again shows that to be happening.

The press release also talks about the prevalence of BSE in the Canadian herd and gives numbers. The numbers get a little mind numbing after a while but it brings up the point I have wondered about for a while. Why is the prevalence of BSE so much higher in Canadian cattle than American cattle? The Canadians have a lot smaller herd size yet they have more cases than the US. What is the cause of the difference? I wish somebody could answer this question for my idle curiosity but I haven't been able to find the information.

I do worry about the prevalence of BSE in the Canadian herd causing problems for Americans via our export market since the USDA lets Canadian cattle in willy nilly to co-mingle with the American herd but there doesn't be much i can appear to do about the situation. All American consumers care about is the price of beef and letting Canadian cattle in helps hold the price of beef down for the consumer so the Government condones the whole situation.

I've asked both of Montana's Senate candidates, Conrad Burns and Jon Tester, about there thoughts on Canadian cattle, Bse and our cattle export markets and both have not responded to the question at all. Typical politicians, ask a tough question and they ignore or duck the question. That tells me that they both don't care about Montana, or US, cattlemen. It doesn't leave me much option when the election comes. Typical.

Common sense is judgment without reflection, shared by an entire class, an entire nation, or the entire human race. Giambattista Vico

Over at mtpolitics there is an interesting link to a story on ethanol (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanol.html) in the NY Times yesterday. If you are at all interested in the politics of ethanol it is a good read. It also raises some of the concerns I have as a livestock producer in the US.

"Unless we have huge increases in productivity, we will have a huge problem with food production," Mr. Staley said. "And the world will have to make choices."

Last year corn production topped 11 billion bushels — second only to 2004's record harvest. But many analysts doubt whether the scientists and farmers can keep up with the ethanol merchants.

"By the middle of 2007, there will be a food fight between the livestock industry and this biofuels or ethanol industry," Mr. Basse, the economic forecaster, said. "As the corn price reaches up above $3 a bushel, the livestock industry will be forced to raise prices or reduce their herds. At that point the U.S. consumer will start to see rising food prices or food inflation."

If that occurs, the battleground is likely to shift to some 35 million acres of land set aside under a 1985 program for conservation and to help prevent overproduction. Farmers are paid an annual subsidy averaging $48 an acre not to raise crops on the land. But the profit lure of ethanol could be great enough to push the acreage, much of it considered marginal, back into production.

Mr. Staley fears that could distract farmers from the traditional primary goal of agriculture, raising food for people and animals. "We have to look at the hierarchy of value for agricultural land use," he said in a May speech in Washington. "Food first, then feed" for livestock, "and last fuel."

It has greatly worried me that all this rush to ethanol will hurt not only the livestock industry, but the food industry in general. It looks like others are beginning to see the problem too.

This rush to ethanol and it's resulting problems with food security not only for the livestock industry, but for Americans in general is one of the Agricultural related questions I asked Jon Tester, Democratic candidate for US Senate, and have received no reply on. I know Tester is a big supporter of ethanol and was really wondering what his long term plan for food security is for the nation with this ethanol rush going to eat up so much of the nations corn production. By his lack of response I guess he doesn't care.

In the long run this is a concern for the livestock industry but there is not much we can do about it. When prices for the food stuffs get so high people can't afford it then Congress might look at the situation. Not very good long term planning if you ask me.

Plans are nothing; planning is everything. Dwight D. Eisenhower

I again post my woes about trying to get the Democratic US Senate candidate Jon Tester to answer my questions regarding agricultural issues at the Federal level and his positions on them. The reason I bring this up again is the excellent response the Monica Lindeen campaign, the Democratic candidate for the US House, returned when I asked the same questions to her. A few of the issues are still outstanding with her but the majority of the questions I have received an answer to.

I've asked this question before, received no adequate response except the comment to leave Tester alone, he's busy, and I ask it again. If Tester is such a man of the people, especially agricultural folks, why won't he answer simple questions like his position on NAIS or his position on the farm bill and the goals the farm bill should be supporting? These aren't tough questions to answer so why can't I, a registered voter in Montana, get an answer? The Lindeen campaign feels my vote is important enough to respond to the questions with useful information. Why not Tester? Am I not supposed to vote for Tester on the issues he supports or am I just supposed to vote for him because Conrad Burns is a liar and a crook?

I personally want more information on the issues and am getting sick and tired of waiting for it. If the Lindeen campaign can respond to my questions in less than 12 hours why can't the Tester campaign do the same? The only reason I can figure is Tester doesn't want to talk about the issues, just about whether he's prettier than Burns or not. A beauty contest, how sickening.

Voters don't decide issues, they decide who will decide issues. George Will

The love fest for Tester has started but I am still wondering one thing.

WHY WON'T HE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!!!

Just over two weeks ago I emailed the Tester and Morrison Campaigns a series of questions regarding agricultural issues that are presently before the congress and asked for their opinion on them. Both campaigns responded that they got the e-mail but I never heard back from either. This is really sad.

This is probably the 6th or 7th time I have tried to ask questions of the Democrat nominee Tester and I have been ignored every time I ask a question. This is connecting with the people? That's what everybody says he is doing, am I different somehow and not worth a simple answer to a few questions? What makes me so different that I can be ignored safely? Since I care about the issues I am unimportant or is just because I am a cowboy I am safe to ignore?

Tester obviously feels that agricultural issues are unimportant or it is unimportant to answer questions from your potential constituents. I will remember this when it comes time to vote. I know I won't vote for Burns but how can I vote for a candidate that feels agricultural issues are unimportant to Montanans? I can't. Maybe its time to look at the Libertarian candidate. At least he doesn't pretend to be for Montanans and then ignore them when they try to communicate with them like Tester. Sad day for Montana politics.

A prudent question is one-half of wisdom. Francis Bacon

Burns May Be Bouncing Back (Washigton Post story free registration required)

Polls here suggest that Burns, 71, a three-term incumbent who has been targeted by the Democrats as one of the most beatable Republicans in the Senate, may be bouncing back from the pounding he took late last year after the publication of several articles detailing his ties to Abramoff.

How disgusting. Are Montana voters so gullible that they will overlook Burns taking a bribe from Abramoff? It's sure beginning to look like it. The poll numbers going up proves Burns's propaganda machine must be working in that the blitz of ads running around the state must be muddying the waters about the Abramoff scandal and people are getting tires of hearing about it. I just can't believe it that Montana voters can be bought and paid for so easily.

How about Burns's chief opponent Morrison?

In the Denny's near the interstate, Hill, the retired railroad man, said Morrison would become "a pot calling the kettle black."

So far, Burns has said nothing about the affair, but it seems certain to come up, if Morrison and Burns win their respective primaries. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which distributes money to candidates, will not be shy about publicizing the affair, said Brian Nick, spokesman for the committee.

"Morrison has got his own ethical baggage," Nick said. "So his attempt to level criticism at Burns or anybody else is really going to fall on deaf ears."

Well, that finishes answering my question about Morrison. He is damages goods with his ethical lapses and will be unable to effectively attack Burns on the Abramoff issue with his own ethical lapses so a win by him, who the mainstream Democrats are supporting, will bring a candidate who will effectively not be able to attack Burns on this important issue.

Which leaves Tester.

The likely beneficiary of Morrison's problems is state Sen. Jon Tester, a broad-shouldered, soft-spoken farmer from Big Sandy, Mont., who is also president of the Montana Senate. He has struggled to raise money in his first statewide race -- even though the rock band Pearl Jam performed at a fundraiser for him (bassist Jeff Ament is a friend from Big Sandy) -- but that problem would likely disappear if he won the primary.

My biggest problem with Tester is his close ties to Gov. Schweitzer, who I can't stand, and his lack of a stance on many issues. I have yet to hear about him standing up on a complex issue and take a firm stand. He might be doing it, but it's not reaching my little corner on Montana. Also when I have attempted to ask him a question, I have been ignored like I don't even exist. If he wants to ignore me that way, I can ignore him right back.

So, where does this all leave Montana and the Senate race? It looks like it is going to be interesting that's for sure. The only thing I have to say is somebody is going to win the seat and with the list of candidates running for the seat, the losers in this election will be the citizens of the State of Montana. Isn't that a sad thing.

At some point in Montana, there is a dislike of outsiders and the national press telling us what to think. The thinking is he is a son of a gun, but he is our son of a gun and he can bring home the bacon. Craig Harris

I found this quote appropriate and sad. Montana voters want bought off.