Either/or vs. both/and

by Mary Fahnestock-Thomas, Hamilton

“You can’t compete with me; I want you to win too.” That meme from Facebook reminds me of that ancient John Denver song that says, “Who’s to say you have to lose for someone else to win?”

Not long ago the City of Hamilton decided to spend some public money dealing with all the rabbits that had made their home here for decades – including in my garden. Some folks were angry that the money didn’t go to fixing potholes in the roads they drive every day, but does it have to be either/or? 

I suspect that properly fixing potholes and other infrastructure depends not just on city money, but also on state and possibly federal, and so is more expensive and more complicated than the rabbits and takes longer to get going. It’s not that the rabbits were a real problem and the potholes are not. (And my garden and I are very grateful not to be competing with rabbits anymore.)

Seems to me there’s a similar situation at the state level right now: There’s a surplus in Montana’s budget, and our two main political parties are divided about what to do with it. 

The Republican majority in our legislature wants to call a special session at the end of September and commit to returning that money to taxpayers in the form of rebate checks instead of using it for “new government programs” (see the lead opinion in the Ravalli Republic today, 8/21/22). 

Either/or. The special session is also a transparent ploy to convince you to vote for Republicans in November because they will be seen to put money in your pocket.

The Democratic minority is not opposed to rebate checks but wants to 1) save the money required for a special legislative session and 2) make sure enough of that surplus money goes, for starters, to 

– addressing the housing shortage here by providing low-interest loans to developers of affordable housing;

– helping out those Montanans whose property taxes are too large a percentage of their income;

– making sure that child care is more available to all Montanans and public schools have the mental health personnel they need, and that these people receive appropriate wages;

– and to refilling Montana’s emergency coffers, which are necessary to respond to wildfires and other emergencies both summer and winter and which are unpredictable. 

Both/and. The Democrats are saying, “Slow down a bit and look at this a little harder. We can spend it all on a couple tanks of gas this month, or we can stretch it to make all Montanans’ lives a bit more comfortable for years to come and have enough to help with gas and food as well.”

I prefer that approach – long-term, efficient, thoughtful, inclusive – seems to me like a win/win. It might even bring help to our potholes a bit quicker!