Wednesday February 23, 2011

Opinion & Editorial

by Bain Robinson, Corvallis

The fruits of the last election cycle are ripening. Those seed-like promises of less government, the assurances that each of us knows best and should be left to wield our own intelligences, that less restriction will garner greater advance and prosperity are coming close to harvest. Or are they?

At this session's opening, the legislature's goal, according to Tom McGillvray, House Majority Leader, was to begin “the restoration of our liberties and freedoms.” Then began hearings on allowing big game hunting with spears.

Restoration of liberties and freedoms? Take next, for example, two constitutional initiatives which voters validated at the last election. The legislature is now busy telling us what we really meant when those were passed. Outfitters, we should have foreseen, need to be compensated—with tax dollars—for the business they will lose since out-of-state hunters no longer have priority. And the medical marijuana initiative, we must have meant after all, needs a complex structure involving what amounts to individual clinical trials overseen by law enforcement. (This will certainly help reduce medical costs.) Think the legislature is only fixated with correcting our errors at the state level? Not so. Missoula's anti-discrimination ordinance is apparently also a local error the legislature intends to fix.

And those campaign promises of transparency and government nonintervention in our lives? The implication that, given our own voices, we'll know what's best? How, then, align that stance with the move to disenfranchise countless of us by making voting requirements among the strictest in the nation?

Here's the real deal. The legislature is mandated to do merely two things. The first is to work within a balanced budget. It's what we all do at home; we balance our checkbooks, pay the bills, purchase the necessaries, and save what we can. The legislature, to be sure, has a slightly more difficult task—but it ain't rocket science—since they have to work with averages generated over several years to discover their “balance.” (Isn't averaging usually covered in 3rd grade math classes?) It is apparent, however, that averaging is problematic, since so many different answers to the problem are being generated in Helena.

The second task the legislature must accomplish is to fund K-12 education at the rate of 50% the acknowledged cost per student. At home, don't you do what you can to get those “mandated” items out of the way first? Not so the legislature. In each and every session they leave educational funding to the very end. Perhaps it works this way because the problem is so difficult. It must be, since no legislature either Republican- or Democratic-controlled has managed the task without cheating. When the dollars remaining at the end of a particular session for education don't match the mandate, the legislature always changes its working definitions to “lawfully” underfund our state's and nation's future.

Here's a suggestion those in Helena might consider in their zeal to “deliver educational excellence” and put us all back to work. Since they're consistently reluctant to fund the next generations of informed/learned citizens why not quit the charade all together? Why not introduce a bill which dedicates educational funding to razing every school in the state. Construction companies could knock the schools down, gather the bricks, and move them to strategic locations for reuse in the construction of prisons. This would put countless people to work and lower the unemployment rate to almost zero. After all, we're going to need housing for doctors who prescribe medical marijuana, those who try to vote illegally, boys who wear dresses, and girls who wear pants. This could, then, be called “The Assisted Living Initiative.”

There is one true attempt by our lawmakers to move the government out of our lives, and I do want to give credit where it's due. The proposal would allow guns—concealed guns—to become ubiquitous across the state. It becomes more and more apparent that we're all in danger each and every minute and should be able to carry armament whether we're at home or drinking at the local watering hole. Legislators too would be able to carry concealed weapons into the legislative halls. Is it a stretch to imagine that in their paranoia we'll have our lawmakers shooting each other, set off by the sight of a shoulder-holster-bulge across the aisle? The aftermath is also imaginable: the survivors will plead innocence by reason of insanity (and be acquitted based on their legislative performance).

How attuned are our legislators to the “global village” conversations about what it's going to take to compete as we make our way deeper into the 21st century? The conversations which conclude that more information is best; collaboration yields alternatives; in short, two heads are better than one. Ready? Up for consideration in Helena is the reduction of collaboration and thoughtful consideration in what is supposed to be the state's ultimate knowledge-base, the Supreme Court. The proposal? Reduce the number of judges from the current seven to five. The restriction of opinion/thought is what Helena's really about.

If the legislature is working on “the restoration of our liberties and freedoms”, what about these? Cuts to family/elderly services (which will only, if we are courageous enough to admit it, affect those living in poverty), planned intervention in end-of-life decisions (although “health care sharing ministries” are okay since they're religious in nature), “free market (health care) reforms” one of which, “tort reform” would narrow the liability of medical providers”. And, according to Representative Gary MacLaren, “. . .making consumers responsible for health care and their health” (isn't this what we've previously had?), as well as the still-to-come redefinition of what a quality education is depending on how much money is left once this is all finally over.

And what does this “restoration” promise? Those least able to afford children must have them, health care is to remain out of reach and malpractice unassailable (while our legislators sign-up for tax-subsidized coverage), educational opportunity will continue to be reduced to a least-common-denominator, and opportunity for participation in the democratic process decreased.

Could this, then, be the last straw? On January 27th, Representative Bob Lake assured us that along with all those other “opportunities” the legislature was going to reinstate, it would as well work to responsibly develop natural resources across the state. And then the hearings began in which mining interests advocated stripping our environmental protections of checks and balances available to those who actually live here. Since Mr. Lake isn't afraid to exaggerate, neither am I. Anyone remember Milltown's dam? Has anyone stood at the edge of the Berkeley pit lately? Anyone else want arsenic in their drinking water?

Can you imagine the scenarios which might have occurred had we authorized a constitutional convention? Wait. . .maybe the legislature will reverse our decision on that one as well. And we can all cowboy-up, raise our right hands and recite the Code of the West!

Bipartisanship?

Dear Editor,

These days lots of folks are talking about bipartisanship. There have always been people who expressed the desire for our elected representatives to work together in the interest of the people. It is certainly an admirable concept, but closer examination suggests that it may be nothing more than wishful thinking. It may even be irrational thinking.

Considering that we have a two party system in this country, it seems clear that they disagree on the way the country should be. Elections provide voters the opportunity to choose the party of their choice. Obviously they hold conflicting views.

I am puzzled by the current outcry for the parties to “get along.” Frankly, that is nonsense. It is a slogan repeated by people who have no idea what they are asking for. It is a fiction that has been sold to the people. Ask anyone who says that what they mean. Ask for examples.

I asked a man that question once. He responded that he wanted them to get along and get something done. I asked what he wanted them to get done. I pressed him for a specific issue that the two parties could collaborate on. He had no answer. I realized that he was repeating a slogan that he had never really thought through.

Another irritating development is the call from Barack Obama for bipartisanship. When this man was elected he had a super majority, with Democrats controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress. President Obama made a point of reminding Republicans that the Democrats had won the election.

During his campaign he told the American people that all negotiations on issues would be posted on C-SPAN so that Americans would be able to see the process. He said that he would do that within 100 days of his election. Obviously that was not true. At one point, when Republicans were asking to be involved in formulating health care reform, he disdainfully told them that they could come along, but that they would have to sit in the back.

Some black Republicans chastised him for making a racially insensitive remark. Be that as it may, bipartisanship was clearly not a priority for Democrats until after the last election. They were shellacked by voters who gave Republicans a majority in the House of Representatives. Suddenly the president and Democrats have developed a newfound appetite for collaborating with Republicans. But based on past performance anything they say about working together is unbelievable.

I hope that more Americans begin to think about what exactly it is that they want elected officials to work together to achieve. Democrats believe that America can spend its way out of a financial crisis by adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Conservative Republicans think that dramatically reducing government spending is the only way to avoid a national disaster. So on what issues can they collaborate and get something done? Compromise is the key, according to lots of people. Of course, when questioned for details, there is always the clarifying, “Don’t sacrifice core beliefs.”

But isn’t all of this about core beliefs? Are people in different parties because they have some things that they really believe in and some issues that they consider negotiable?

Does anyone believe that Barack Obama has changed his beliefs after voters rejected his agenda and his Party in the last election? Has he abandoned his goal of achieving a total transformation of America? Is the man who described Republicans as the enemy and talked about bringing a gun if Republicans brought a knife sincerely planning to sing “Kumbaya” with Republican legislators? There is one sure way to find out. Let him get reelected in 2012.

Gene Williams
Hamilton

No reason to fear assisted suicide

Dear Editor,

What is with the paranoia about assisted suicide? I cannot believe the fears people have about this issue. This is a simple issue of compassion, kindness and humanity being shown to those we love. This seems to be a family or private and personal issue. The laws are designed to help, not hurt. If you have ever had the misfortune to see your nearest and dearest die a prolonged agonizing death, surely you would want them to be pain free.

Death is an end of life process. It can be gruesome for some. I would wish we all die in our sleep, like my grandmother… it doesn’t always happen that way. In these technological times, the medical profession has the ability to keep our bodies breathing while we are actually brain-dead. Wasting away, in pain with lots of suffering, is not how we want our respected anybody’s dying… if you ask me.

The gentleman who wrote last week’s letter sounded crazy to me. Who, on this earth, would “abuse…people with disabilities and our revered elders”? Who is he talking about? There are no people out there waiting to kill anyone with this law in place. There are no medical practitioners or “predators” waiting in the wings to kill off innocent people. It is assisted dying, not assisted murder, for Pete’s sake.

Thanks to all the legislators who recently voted to keep Compassion and Choice a part of Montana Law. Thank you all for listening to the majority of Montanans who want compassion for the terminally ill.

Celia Grohmann
Stevensville

Where’s the Love?

Dear Editor,

Last week Valentine’s Day was celebrated, yet we don’t feel the love when we look at the actions taken by the legislative majority in Helena during the 62nd Legislative Session. Where’s the love for Montanans by axing five percent out of a lean budget, and thereby cutting or eliminating critically needed services? Where’s the love in attempts to reduce or eliminate basic civil rights? Where’s the love for the voters by needlessly changing voter identification requirements, reversing same day voter registration, throwing out voter initiatives? Where’s the love of the many wonders of our great state by gutting environmental protections, protections created from lessons learned after decades of corporate abuse?

The legislative majority has slashed the Governor’s balanced budget by at least five percent across the board, even much more for secondary education. Why? There’s no need. These are cuts for the sake of cutting, not for economic development. More information comes in every day that indicates Montana’s economy is rebounding. The budget the Governor presented is balanced and sets aside $238 million for an ending fund balance. Montana continues to place high in various business friendly rankings. Most recently, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation ranks Montana sixth most business friendly tax climate. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has rated Montana first in entrepreneurship and innovation and tenth in overall growth performers. Montana continues to perform well and is not in economic crisis.

Why all of the cuts? To be even more “business friendly?” Is it business friendly to cut funding for education when businesses need, demand, an educated work force? How can we compete by cutting early childhood education funding, doing away with all-day kindergarten and slashing funding for K-12 and higher education, cutting over $70 million? Are these cuts in the best interest of Montana and Montanans?

Let’s put a human face to some additional unnecessary and harmful funding cuts. The Big Sky Rx Program that helps senior citizens with their prescription drug costs – eliminated. The nationally recognized Montana Tobacco Use Prevention Program – eliminated. Big Brothers Big Sisters support – eliminated. Reducing drug court funding by 35%. Reducing medical subsidies for adopted children. Reducing funding for home health care that allow people to remain in their homes, rather than the more expensive and less desirable option of nursing or group home. These are just a few examples of the unnecessary $30 million in cuts to health and human services the legislative majority has proposed. Where’s the love?

There certainly is no love for we, the voters. Already the House has approved eliminating election day registration and same day voting and requiring that the ONLY acceptable form of identification to register and/or vote are a current Montana driver’s license, a current tribal photo identification, or a current Montana identification card – all which take financial resources that some of our neediest citizens do not have. Rather than improve upon the Medical Marijuana Act, the legislative majority is actively moving to abolish this voter initiative that passed with 62% of the vote.

What is there to say about attacks on human rights by the legislature’s majority? There are unnecessary bills a plenty that unconstitutionally focus on immigration. One of the worst bills would make it punishable by up to six months imprisonment if a doctor does not perform a legislatively mandated ultrasound with provided script if his or her patient requests an abortion.

Lastly are attempts to gut our environmental protections. Foremost is the bill passed in the House to amend our state constitution changing our rights to “a clean, healthful and economically productive environment,” giving businesses the constitutional right to object to any regulation affecting their bottom line. Montana and her people continue to recover from environmental abuses by past, irresponsible mining practices: Libby, Zortman Gold Mine, Berkeley Pit. Montanans twice voted to outlaw cyanide heap leach mining. We love the health and natural beauty of our state. Why can’t this legislative majority?

Write or call your legislators at (406) 444-4800 and hold them accountable to govern for the benefit of all Montanans, every human face. Ask them, where’s the love?

Maggie Wright, Hamilton
Pam Walzer, Missoula
Charlotte Kelley, Clancy
Sarah Cline, Great Falls
Bethany Letiecq, Bozeman
Monica Abbott, Helena

©2011 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney