Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

The Republicans in the state are really trying to make political hay over Gov. Schweitzer's veto of firefighter tax breaks now that fire season is really on us. This is blatantly politics and anybody with half a brain would realize this. Why didn't the Republicans make such a big issue out of it when the veto occurred? Why did they wait until there were several large fires burning in the state and then bring this up? Politics is the reason pure and simple. Hell, the tax breaks they are talking about only affects volunteer firefighters which doesn't affect most of the people fighting the big fires in the state. The Republicans are just trying to link these items up in peoples mind. The sad thing is that it will work in too many instances.

Talking about tax breaks though, why firefighters? Why are they the only ones that were targeted for this tax break? Aren't there other deserving people out there? Policemen, Nurses, farmers, ranchers, hell just about everyone else for that matter. Why just the one class of people? That is what I would like to know. Why can't all the residents of Montana get a tax break? Maybe that is what the Republicans should be focusing on instead of the hay they are trying to make. That is too logical though and would benefit too many people. Easier just to criticize those in charge. There has to be a better way of doing things.

They criticize me for harping on the obvious; if all the folks in the United States would do the few simple things they know they ought to do, most of our big problems would take care of themselves. Calvin Coolidge

We all knew it was coming, the Democrats are adding agricultural disaster aid into a "supplemental spending bill." When I first saw this headline it looked like maybe Congress was finally going to get somewhere with Disaster aid for those who need it. It turns out I was wrong.

The Democrats are attaching this disaster aid to legislation that would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next year. This is a sure way to get the disaster aid vetoed by the President if they can even get it through Congress. Reports are that the chances of getting this through the House are slim the way it is and the Senate isn't even considering anything remotly the same. Are the Democrats hoping to garner a few votes for their political Iraq agenda in the House by attaching disaster aid to it? I would say yes, that's what they are trying to do and it's wrong.

I was hoping the Democrats would be above such political games as the Republicans used to play. It appears they aren't Would it be so difficult for the Democrats to allow a vote on Disaster aid in a package all by itself that isn't attached to such an emotionally charged issue as a mandatory troop withdrawal from Iraq? Obviously it is for them.

The disaster aid needs to be severed from this bill. Even if the House passes it, it will be vetoed and they don't have enough votes to get a veto overridden. How like politicians, get desperate people's hope up that you are going to help them then play a game to insure that it will be killed so you don't have to do it. That way you can claim you support the desperate people when you really don't. They were just the pawns in a power struggle for the 2008 elections. I hope farmers and ranchers recognize how they are being used here and why. The Congress doesn't want to help them, just use their pain in a game and laugh the whole time. What a mess, thanks to Politicians.

For he who has health has hope; and he who has hope, has everything. Owen Arthur

Don't you love it when politicians make noise to hear their own voice.

Schweitzer cautiously optimistic about budget

Gov. Brian Schweitzer predicts that the Legislature will finish its work on time and leave Helena with a balanced budget, despite the flap created when House Republicans split the big budget bill, House Bill 2, into six separate spending bills.

Excuse me, the part about finishing on time and with a balanced budget are just noise. These things are required by the Montana Constitution so all parties involved have no choice but to finish on time and with a balanced budget. That's just noise designed to make things sound ominous by the Governor.

Now The Governor's concern about the six separate bills coming to his desk in a staggered fashion might have some credence if the Governor didn't control the State Senate. Since he does all he has to do is have the Senate Majority leader schedule final votes on the six separate bills all at the same time so that they all come to his desk at the same time. Problem solved.

This whole story is just a bunch of noise. Part of the political game that is being played in Helena. Let's not get to up in arms about it.

Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid. Mark Twain

There was an article awhile ago on Walter Schweitzer and the role he played in state government which I talked about. It was in a small paper and I have been waiting for the larger media to pick up on the story and see where it goes from there. I finally see the larger media in the state has picked up on it.

Brothers in arms

I see a lot of the same things in this story that I did the earlier story but since this is a larger paper they got access to the Schweitzer brothers and we heard from them.

Gov. Schweitzer downplayed his brother’s role, saying Walter has little or no role in the administration.

“He doesn’t speak for the administration, he doesn’t speak for me and I don’t ask him to speak for me, unless it’s on campaign matters,’’ the governor said last week. “In terms of policy, he doesn’t have a policy position.’’

This quote is early in the article. If you don't read the whole article you would think the whole thing is on the up and up and think the question has been answered. But later in the article you see a little more that makes you question the Governor's statement.

Last fall, before the December 2005 special legislative session on school funding, Walter helped guide negotiations on what sort of funding deal would be acceptable to the administration.

On the day before the special session convened, Walter presented the proposal to Democratic lawmakers meeting at party headquarters in Helena, according to a lawmaker who attended.

He also took part in meetings at the governor’s office this summer with energy industry officials hoping to do business in Montana, said Rep. Alan Olson, R-Roundup.

Olson, who supports Gov. Schweitzer’s efforts to foster coal development in eastern Montana, said he’d spoken to some of those officials after the meetings.

“They go in, and Walter’s there at the table, discussing parts of their business,’’ Olson said. “It just strikes everybody as odd.’’

The Governor says that Walter has no say on policy but he directed the negotiations on school funding and briefed Democrats on what was acceptable to the administration. That sounds like policy and not campaign to me. You also see he was a major player in the energy policy the Governor has been proposing. Again policy items and not campaign items.

I also note that there are still reports in this article about people being scared to talk to media because they are afraid of retaliation from Brian and Walter. I was hoping not to continue to see these reports but here thy are.

Democratic lawmakers, who didn’t want their names used because they feared retribution from the Schweitzer administration, said they’ve attended policy and strategy meetings at the Capitol in 2005 and early 2006 where Walter seemed to be directing the meeting.

“If you just went to the meetings and didn’t know he wasn’t on the payroll, you’d assume he was on the governor’s staff, helping guide policy and strategy for delivering it,’’ said one lawmaker.

Two members of the Montana Film and Television Advisory Council, which was scrapped by Gov. Schweitzer this year after a political spat between the council and the Department of Commerce, also said Walter called them to tell them they’d been dismissed as members.

“He called us up to tell us that (the governor) was dissolving the council,’’ said Patrick Markey, a film producer from Bozeman. “I never heard from the governor on it. I was very disappointed. (Walter) said he was calling on behalf of Brian.’’

Is such fear a normal and good part of a Democratic process? For lawmakers to fear the administration is bad news. Instead of free and open debate we get people scared to speak their mind for fear the administration will punish their district. Not a very Progressive way to Govern if you ask me.

I will quote myself from the last time around here.

"Accountability and access. Montana has a tradition, enforced by law, of public access to our Government and accountability for it's actions at all levels. Walter, working in the shadows, betrays this tradition in Montana and the Governor needs to realize this. Either Walter needs to be moved into the spotlight and made accountable for his actions or he needs to go home and let the Governor lead the state as he is supposed to. The voters of Montana elected the Schweitzer and Bohlinger team to lead our fair state, not the Walter and Brian Schweitzer team. Hopefully our Governor will act quickly on this issue and resolve it."

Accountability and access. I don't think that is to much to ask for. Those apologists out there that think fear, intimidation, and lack of accountability are the way to run our government really need to think about this a little more. This is a beautiful state that learned a lot from the corruption, fear and intimidation of the Copper King era of politics in the State and we don't need to revert to that. I sincerly hope the Governor will take heed of this.

I understand how it is when you work with somebody close to you, you begin to think alike and sometimes you don't relieve how much assistance that person is giving you and how much you delegate to that person. I think that is what is happening here. I don't think it's a conspiracy or something like that. I think it's happened without either Brian or Walter realizing that it has happened. Brian has relied on his brother for so long it doesn't seem wrong to him. Maybe it isn't wrong, but it does violate the spirit an intentions of the laws our Government works under.

The Governor needs to step back and take a long look at all of this and consider how it seems to other people. The appearance on impropriety is sometimes worse than any actual impropriety and that is what is going on here. Whether there is any thing wrong with what Walter is doing, too many people are seeing something wrong. Maybe Walter should consider moving back to Chester and distancing himself from the Governor for the good of us all and to put the appearance of impropriety to rest. This would help Governor Brian Schweitzer face this legislative session with out this problem hanging over his head.

Just a thought that I know will be ignored by all.

The appearance of variety is a complete illusion. It's like somebody who's got a dartboard in his room, and there's darts all over it, but all I was trying to do was hit the board. That's all I've ever tried to do. Robert Wyatt

I think this headline is a little premature.

National ID Is Dead

USDA effectively and quietly knocked the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in the head last Wednesday. It did so with the unheralded publication of the "NAIS User Guide," which replaces all former NAIS draft documents. This document, for the first time, emphasizes NAIS as a voluntary program rather than as a steppingstone to a mandatory one.

In fact, at the very beginning, the guide explains, "USDA is not requiring participation in the program. NAIS can help producers protect the health and marketability of their animals -- but the choice to participate is theirs."

Maybe I'm cynical, but I really don't think NAIS is dead. Can everybody out there remember how the Federal Government mandated a 55 MPH speed limit in the 70's? Since they couldn't set a national speed limit themselves they required the states, by threatening to withhold highway funding, to set speed limits and all states fell right in line and did it.

What's to stop them from doing this here. Requiring a mandatory ID system by the states by blackmail them. I think it is something to be aware of and to remain wary of. Also of note, what will happen with the Democrat congress and in the future a new administration?

All of us Americans that value freedom will need to be wary of NAIS in the future. The USDA might have had to back off for now but vigilance is required to ensure its ugly head does not rear up again.

Blackmail has become respectable. Robert G. Menzies

It's been decided finally. Republicans have gained control of the Montana House after the Laurel recount. So which road will they take? Will they hold true to traditional Republican values of less government and lower taxes or will they just try to outspend the Democrats in an all out bid to win the elections the next time around?

Some Republican leaders, including incoming House Speaker Scott Sales, have said they'd like to see broader property-tax cuts and more surplus funds returned to taxpayers in the form of rebates or tax cuts.

Rebates or tax cuts? If they opt for rebates they are just trying to buy votes, if they go for permanent tax cuts I might think they hold traditional Republican values. I'm not holding my breath though.

In reality we are looking at deadlock in the state government. Each side trying to get it's way and neither winning. It's going to be an interesting ride to see what happens. Will Gov. Schweitzer be the true Bipartisan Governor he claims to be or will throw a temper tantrum if he doesn't get his way? Stay tuned for the fun.

Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me. Harry S. Truman

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

I've heard rumors for quite a while now that to approach the Governor of our fair state, Brian Schweitzer, it is necessary to go through his brother. I never heard the name of this brother but I have heard that it is necessary to be very careful what you say because if he takes exception to anything you say the chances of seeing, speaking or even looking at the fair Governor will be zero to none. I have taken these rumor's under advisement since I had no way of knowing any more than the rumors I heard, until now.

The Walter Ego

Nobody knows what the governor’s brother does, but everyone in Helena knows if they want something done, they’ve got to go through Walter Schweitzer.

Mention the name “Walter” in Helena’s political circles and there’s no question who you’re talking about. Walter Schweitzer, the imposing, bearded, overbearing younger brother of Gov. Brian Schweitzer, is simultaneously Helena’s 800-pound gorilla and state government’s elephant in the room. His regular presence at the state capitol is an open secret that politicians whisper about at cocktail parties, and goes largely ignored by the state press. That’s partly because nobody, including high-ranking Democratic legislative leaders, seems to know much about him, other than the fact that he’s got the run of the governor’s office.

What politicians, industry executives and special interest groups do know is that if you want to get to the governor, you’ve got to go through Walter first.

It's amazing. Normally rumors are not quite substantiated this way but this one sure is. I'm just surprised that that it is being reported on. John Adams will probable now have a very hard time reporting on Montana Politics now because Walter will blacklist him with the Governor.

How does a man like Walter who is neither elected or appointed to any position wield such power? Is it right for such a person to wield such power?

The majority of the approximately 30 sources contacted by the paper would talk about Walter only on the condition of anonymity. Nearly everyone interviewed is a state employee, elected official or registered lobbyist, and nearly all of them said they feared for their careers—or at the very least their ability to do their job—if they said anything about Walter on the record. A lobbyist without access to the administration is useless to industry clients, and legislators need the governor’s support if they hope to pass any of their bills.

When called by this reporter, one source contacted an attorney before declining to speak to me. Another asked me to destroy a facsimile cover letter bearing his name and phone number for fear that someone in the administration might find out he communicated with me. When I contacted one source and told him the subject of my story, he said he’d have to get back to me. When he did, he told me he had talked to friends in Helena who believed I was working for Walter, and that I was “trying to ferret out Walter’s enemies.”

Due to such reticence—along with the fact that Walter rebuffed repeated and persistent requests for an interview, citing his need to get back home to Geyser to complete ranch work before winter—details about Walter Schweitzer remain, in large part, a mystery.

The main question asked by the people I talked to is this: Given that he seems to spend most of his time at the capitol, and given that he isn’t employed by the state, how does Walter make his living in Helena?

State employees and legislatures for the state are afraid to speak about Walter and his role since it would compromise them. Is such fear as this by elected representatives normal or right? No.

Some people have brought up that this might be nepotism. A careful reading of Montana law indicates to me that it is not since there apparently is no state money changing hands for Walter's services. Since nobody knows how Walter makes a living in the Capitol it would be interesting to know where his money is coming from to know whether any nepotism laws are being broken but unless Walter starts revealing the information, we will never know.

Accountability and access. Montana has a tradition, enforced by law, of public access to our Government and accountability for it's actions at all levels. Walter, working in the shadows, betrays this tradition in Montana and the Governor needs to realize this. Either Walter needs to be moved into the spotlight and made accountable for his actions or he needs to go home and let the Governor lead the state as he is supposed to. The voters of Montana elected the Schweitzer and Bohlinger team to lead our fair state, not the Walter and Brian Schweitzer team. Hopefully our Governor will act quickly on this issue and resolve it.

One last note. I wonder if this story will give the Lee newspaper chain, the dominate newspaper in the state, the balls to pursue this story on their own and give these problems an airing to a bigger section of Montana citizens? I doubt it but I will hope. Until then the 800 pound Gorilla named Walter will still use his presence to manipulate the citizens and politicians of our fair state.

This town was built on nepotism. Damon Wayans

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

Aid Is a Bumper Crop for Farmers

In the spring of 2000, Congress decided to do something about its costly and politically driven practice of giving farmers a disaster payment each time a storm damaged their crops.

The lawmakers voted to use $8 billion in new taxpayer subsidies to help farmers buy crop insurance to protect them against losses. The insurance would replace the disaster payments and reduce government costs.

But shortly after passing the Agricultural Risk Protection Act, Congress lost its fiscal will. One week before the presidential election, it passed a new $1.8 billion disaster bill to assist farmers hurt by bad weather. Two others followed in subsequent years, totaling more than $6 billion. Today, after a searing drought in the Plains, farm-state legislators are pushing for billions more in aid.

Yes, disaster aid is a crop in and of itself for farmers. I will not deny this and anybody that does is not living in reality. This above article is very interesting and a good read for all of you who are interested in disaster aid and farming. It points out how crop insurance is a government subsidized program, so that paying for disaster aid is like double dipping. You get crop insurance payments and disaster aid, all from the government.

The interesting thing here, not covered by the article is how you qualify for most disaster aid. Your crops have to be covered by crop insurance. No crop insurance, no disaster aid. So while they call it double dipping, you have no choice. To partake in the farm programs you have to have crop insurance which then authorizes you to receive disaster aid.

Those farmers have come to depend on both crop insurance and disaster payments, which together allow for covering up to 95 percent of the value of their crops. "Taxpayers are funding something good, the rural life," said Terry Aronson, a farmer in the flood-prone Devil's Lake area of North Dakota, who has received nearly $300,000 in disaster aid the past decade.

I like this one. Do you taxpayers enjoy "funding something good, the rural life?" I have a question as usual, what makes the rural life good if it requires such large doses of disaster aid on a regular basis? Another question, what makes the rural life good? It is intrinsically good somehow or is it the regular infusion of taxpayer money that makes it good? If everybody chases the "good,rural life" will the rural life be rural anymore since most people will be there or will the cities be rural?

Fisher said he doesn't begrudge growers who have collected disaster aid, despite the cost to taxpayers. His own farm has gotten some. "Whether it's right or wrong, if they are offering it, you're foolish to turn it down," he said.

Somebody with my opinion, right or wrong, if they offer it you are a fool not to take it. That is like the program that is being offered in my area nbow. Could I get by without it? Yes. Will I apply for it? Yes, a person is a fool to turn it down. I might not be very bright, but I am not a fool.

Congressional sponsors of disaster legislation offer a variety of reasons for their bills. They say federally subsidized insurance doesn't cover all of a farmer's losses, and disaster aid fills the gaps. It helps to stabilize rural economies, which don't have many other options. And it offsets rising fuel and production costs while securing cheap food for Americans.

Ah, the real reason stated for the farm programs and disaster aid. Cheap food. The government realizes that if people can't afford food and are hungry they will throw the bums out of office by the ballot box or by force. Hungry people are capable of anything, like overthrowing civil authority, and that scares those in power. so, what do they do, keep the price of food low to keep the masses fat and happy. Those of us that produce the food aren't included in their calculations. If we can't make a living on the cheap food that is not their problem, just the flow of cheap food to the masses.

"We don't like it any more than the taxpayers do. With disaster assistance, we're at the whims of the politicians," he said. "But we need something. I don't care what you name it.

"It's feast or famine here. Economically, does it make sense? Probably not. Philosophically, I don't know. Americans want cheap food, and they want it when they want it."

Lot's of things said here. Most farmers don't like it that's true, and many do need it to stay in business. Like I said above, cheap food. But I think it's the politicians that want the cheap food for the reasons stated, not the people.

I will not beat the drum for disaster aid. Many need it and want it but I will not demean myself for asking (begging) for it. I will accept it if it is offered. The fun part is watching to see if it is going to be offered. Only time will tell.

Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn. Miguel de Cervantes