<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >
<channel>
<title>Weblog of Montana Policy Institute</title>
<description>The Official Weblog of MPI</description>
<link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<title>It's the spending, stupid!</title><description><![CDATA[This is the speech I gave at the Helena &quot;Axe the Budget&quot; tea party March 3rd.
&nbsp;
I just want to make a couple of simple points today.&nbsp;Nothing cosmic. &nbsp;I just want to give you something &nbsp;that you can take home and share with your family and friends and that you can remember them every time you hear some &ldquo;big government&rdquo; person say we don&rsquo;t have enough money:&nbsp;Enough money to
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Pay our teachers
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Pay our firefighters and police
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Pave our roads
Now these are all things that government can and should do with our tax dollars, but at some point in the next six months to a year, they&rsquo;re going to tell you they don&rsquo;t have enough money to do these things anymore.
And what they&rsquo;re going to try and do is to tell you that the state isn&rsquo;t taking in enough &ndash; that it doesn&rsquo;t tax enough, that it doesn&rsquo;t charge enough fees, that they&rsquo;ve been spending your money wisely and now there just isn&rsquo;t enough revenue left to go around what with the recession and all&hellip;
And that now you have to tighten your belt and pay more taxes so that they don&rsquo;t have to tighten theirs. &nbsp;
Well I&rsquo;m here to tell you it&rsquo;s hooey.&nbsp;They&rsquo;ve taken in plenty of our dollars, but they&rsquo;ve spent them faster than they&rsquo;ve taken them in.&nbsp;
We don&rsquo;t have a revenue problem in this state, we have a spending problem.
Did you know that state government has increased its spending by about 7% a year since 2004?&nbsp;
Did you know that the cost of living in this great state has only gone up by about 4% a year since then?&nbsp;
That&rsquo;s 3% a year difference, which means that you&rsquo;ve cut your budget every year for the past seven years so that Helena could increase theirs.&nbsp;
Did you cut your rent?&nbsp;Your food, medicine, recreation; pay more for utilities?&nbsp;That extra money didn&rsquo;t fall from the sky.&nbsp;It came from you.&nbsp;And there was more than enough of it to do what a state government is supposed to do.
If our state government had stayed the same overall size and only increased its spending at the rate of inflation, it would have had enough revenue to give Montanans back over $2 billion from 2005-2010, and instead of looking at a potential deficit in 2011 we&rsquo;d be looking at over $300 million surplus &ndash; and that&rsquo;s after giving back that $2 billion!&nbsp;
So we don&rsquo;t have a revenue problem.&nbsp;
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There&rsquo;s not a revenue problem when Helena spends every nickel it brings in during good times and then raises taxes during bad times to feed its addiction &ndash; that you have to tighten your belt because they won&rsquo;t tighten theirs
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There&rsquo;s not a revenue problem when government&rsquo;s income grows faster than the incomes of the taxpayers&rsquo; who support it
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There&rsquo;s not a revenue problem when lawmakers refuse to give us back our hard earned dollars but use them instead to cater to special interests and to fund their pet projects.
No, we don&rsquo;t have a revenue problem my friends.&nbsp;We have a spending problem.&nbsp;And the only way it&rsquo;s going to get fixed is to stand firm on no new taxes, and bring that budget baseline back down to where it would be if state government spending was held in check and didn&rsquo;t take up a bigger and bigger slice of our economic pie.&nbsp;
Because you know where that bigger government slice comes from?&nbsp;It comes from your slice, and your slice, and our kids&rsquo; and nieces&rsquo; and nephews&rsquo; slices, and your grandkids&rsquo; slices.&nbsp;And that&rsquo;s just not fair.
Now here&rsquo;s the second thing I want you to take home with you today.&nbsp;
Another problem we have is that we&rsquo;ve come to believe that Washington is handing out free money&hellip;that taking their money is OK because, well, if we don&rsquo;t take it someone else will.&nbsp;
Well I&rsquo;m here to tell you: That money isn&rsquo;t free.&nbsp;We&rsquo;re shackling ourselves and our future generations with rules, regulations, restrictions, and bone crushing debt.&nbsp;
Montana is a welfare state: That&rsquo;s right.&nbsp;We take more federal dollars than we give.&nbsp;How&rsquo;s that feel?&nbsp;Are you proud to be a welfare state?&nbsp;I&rsquo;m not.&nbsp;
I wasn&rsquo;t brought up to walk around with a tin cup in my hand.&nbsp;I wasn&rsquo;t brought up to &ldquo;get my fair share.&rdquo;&nbsp;I was brought up to work hard and expect to be paid for it.&nbsp;
I was brought up to look after my neighbors when they needed it and leave them be when they don&rsquo;t.&nbsp;I was brought up to believe there&rsquo;s no shame in accepting charity, only in expecting, or even demanding it.&nbsp;
I was brought up to believe that there&rsquo;s no shame in poverty as long as you&rsquo;re working to get out of it.&nbsp;
But we&rsquo;re not working to get out of it.&nbsp;Our politicians and too many of our businesses are going to Washington with their tin cups begging for money or favors or some kind of special treatment saying they should get their &ldquo;fair share.&rdquo;&nbsp;
But that fair share comes with so many strings and steals so much opportunity that it takes away a fair chance.&nbsp;A chance to succeed.&nbsp;A chance to be rewarded for your work. A chance to set something aside for your kids or to just live a better life.
I say NO.&nbsp;When those politicians and special interests say they&rsquo;re going to fill their tin cups because they&rsquo;re just getting you your fair share tell them:
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don&rsquo;t want a share, I want a future.&nbsp;
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don&rsquo;t expect charity.&nbsp;I expect to be allowed to succeed.&nbsp;
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don&rsquo;t want a fair share, I want a fair chance.
And government can&rsquo;t give me a fair chance; it can only take it away.&nbsp;
So take home those two things if nothing else today
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We don&rsquo;t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don&rsquo;t want a fair share, I want a fair chance.
Thank you for caring about the future of our state to come out here today.]]></description><pubDate>March 5, 2010, 3:23 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=64</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>View on the Senate Race from the VFW</title><description><![CDATA[SOMERVILLE, MA &ndash; To escape the media talking heads and the campaign workers, I took a few minutes to stop by the VFW hall just outside of Boston on Monday afternoon to ask them for their thoughts on the special senate race.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Downstairs in the basement of the local Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 529 in Somerville about seven guys sat around a u-shaped bar. A few of them agreed to talk about who they support.
The one registered Republican in the group said he thinks Republican Scott Brown has a good chance to win.
&nbsp;&ldquo;It&rsquo;s the most optimistic I&rsquo;ve been since the &lsquo;70s,&rdquo; said Hale, a 59-year-old self employed plumber.
Hale even remembered the last Massachusetts Republican senator by name. That was Ed Brooke, last elected in 1972.
Polls show Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley in a close race for the seat once held by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). While Hale is optimistic about his candidate, others predicted victory for Coakley.
Retired Army Veteran Don Frank, 62, told me he is a &ldquo;Democrat all the way,&rdquo; and plans to vote for Coakley.
&ldquo;I think it will be a very close race, but Coakley will pull it out.&rdquo;
A few seats away, former National Guard member John Martin, 65, said that although he&rsquo;s &ldquo;very liberal&rdquo; he will be voting for independent candidate Joe Kennedy. He said Coakley ran a bad campaign that struck him as arrogant.
&ldquo;I just can&rsquo;t bring myself to vote for somebody that would be so arrogant as to expect my vote,&rdquo; he said.
Another man, who declined to give his name, said he doesn&rsquo;t plan to vote tomorrow and typically only votes in presidential elections.
Retired utility worker and former National Guard member Bart Paino, 67, said he thinks the Democrat will have more clout for the state in a Democratic controlled Congress and with a president from the same party.
&ldquo;I think she&rsquo;ll pull it out,&rdquo; Paino said.
Despite their political differences the group shrugged off a question about whether their political differences might cause any personal animosity.
&ldquo;We hate each other,&rdquo; one of the men said.
Then all of them laughed.]]></description><pubDate>January 18, 2010, 5:36 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=63</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Health Care: Partisanship at its worst</title><description><![CDATA[At one o'clock this morning Senate Democrats reached the magic 60 votes necessary to move their health care reform bill forward and all but guarantee its passage.&nbsp; In the process they called those of us who oppose this massive government takeover Aryans, right wing militias, birthers, and more, as if there are no reasonable philosophical or logical reason to oppose this naked power grab.
I'm not going to cry over spilt milk here.&nbsp; I just want to point out three things that show where the partisanship in this debate truly resides, and that demonstrate how obvious it is that this bill has less to do with health care reform than with creating a new class (the middle class) of dependents for Washington's power hungry machine.&nbsp;
First, the bill does little to meet &quot;reform's&quot; original goals of increasing access and decreasing costs, without &quot;adding a dime to the deficit.&quot;&nbsp; The House bill, which will be reconciled with the Senate one, would actually increase health care costs by some $289b over the baseline scenario, and leave over 20 million people uninsured.&nbsp; In addition, private insurance premiums will go up by as much as 13%.&nbsp; It also assumes that we'll achieve nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts, an expectation for which there is no precedent and would be laughable if it weren't so serious. This monstrosity also comes at the cost of over $400b in new taxes.&nbsp; And that's just at the federal level.&nbsp; If you don't live in Nebraska, Louisiana, or a few other select states, Medicaid costs are going to soar as people are pushed out of their private or company plans and into that program.&nbsp; Montana's increased Medicaid costs may be as much as $29m per year&nbsp;depending on what comes out of conference committee, an amount state taxpayers will have to pick up since our Senate delegation rolled early and didn't even have the good sense to hold out for a bribe from Harry Reid.
And finally, what about the not adding one dime to the deficit?&nbsp; Entitlement programs typically come&nbsp;in at about ten times their estimated costs.&nbsp; The numbers being bandied about in the press are also based on a ten year period, the first four of which there are only taxes, no benefits.&nbsp; And both the House and Senate version left out the so-called &quot;doc fix,&quot; a $240 billion testament to the fallacy that Medicare costs can be artificially or arbitrarily controlled by the political class and will now have to paid with deficit spending.&nbsp; There's simply&nbsp;no way that this &quot;reform&quot; can or will be deficit neutral, even with its massive tax increases.&nbsp; One other thing, just because it's deficit neutral doesn't mean it's free.&nbsp; Even our own venerable Sen. Baucus admits to a $2.5 trillion price tag, most of which will be paid by our children and grandchildren.
Second, this overhaul of 17% of our economy was rammed through despite a national outcry to go slow and do it right.&nbsp; The intent is clear: get it through before it can be understood and the opposition fully mobilized.&nbsp; That's been the tactic all the way through.&nbsp; Tea Parties and other grass roots movement slowed it down, but every step of the way they've hurried votes after major changes to forestall opposition.&nbsp; Given that the &quot;reform&quot; doesn't do what they said it would - a fact eagerly acknowledged by the Left as well as the Right - and that they're ramming it through as quickly as possible despite large and growing opposition, it's clear their intent goes well beyond improving America's health care system and is supporting a larger agenda of Washington control over the middle class through entitlement spending.
Third, Democrats did not seek and would not accept&nbsp;bipartisan compromise.&nbsp; Let's start with what should be clear to everyone: compromise does not mean accepting less of what you want, it means giving something in exchange for getting something.&nbsp; Ask Senators Nelson or Landrieu, among others.&nbsp; Far from being the Party of &quot;no,&quot; Republicans had many ideas, including tort reform, national insurance competition, tax code equity for private insurance, and many more that would have increased access and bent the cost curve down without a government takeover.&nbsp; Free market groups like MPI prepared scholarly research and studies justifying and advocating similar measures, and more.&nbsp; Not only were these not debated, they were not even allowed to be put on the table.&nbsp; Dropping the public option, for example,&nbsp;is not compromise; it's dictating at lower terms.&nbsp; Not one measure proposed by Republicans was allowed into any bill.&nbsp; There was no compromise because those who want a government takeover did not want a compromise, and had the power to prevent one.&nbsp;
When people ask you why conservatives are seen as the party of no, or do-nothings, remind them that, in keeping with the topic of the day, we would rather first do no harm.&nbsp; &quot;Just do something&quot; has been the battle cry of the ignorant and intolerant for the past 100 years in this country.&nbsp; It's not that nothing needs to be done, but we have to recognize the costs and benefits of what we do and not latch onto the first shiny object that comes along.&nbsp;
We can still make a difference in this fight.&nbsp; I know the phone banks are full in Washington and they've stopped taking messages, but make your voice be heard.&nbsp; The fact that one of our Senators has Kool-Aid on his breath and the other is missing in action on this debate shouldn't deter you from taking it seriously.&nbsp; They have to understand that there's a cost to ignoring their constituents and playing the Washington power game.]]></description><pubDate>December 21, 2009, 12:00 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=62</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Phantom District Story Ignored by Montana Media</title><description><![CDATA[If you were paying attention to the national news this week, it&rsquo;s likely that you heard about a number of phantom congressional districts. In Montana, the federal website that tracks stimulus spending listed 12 of them.
&nbsp;
Apparently the Montana media was the last to know.
&nbsp;
They shouldn't have been. The Montana Policy Institute was quick to report on this, with our reporter calling an official who oversees the website.
&nbsp;
The comments he gathered and reported on were picked up in publications and blogs around the nation.&nbsp;On Monday night we sent our story to around 100 media outlets across the state. Ironically, we had more success with the national media than the hometown newspapers.
&nbsp;
National Review Online specifically mentioned our reporting on the issue, CNN&rsquo;s Anderson Cooper linked to a story that included our reporting, and reporters from states as far away as New Hampshire, Oregon,&nbsp;and Oklahoma included our reporting in their stories.
&nbsp;
Nationally, the issue was covered on ABC, MSNBC, FOX, the Wall Street Journal, was the top headline on Tuesday&rsquo;s Drudge Report, and the list goes on.
&nbsp;
Obviously this was a legitimate news issue, as it was covered by major media outlets around the country. And it had a Montana angle. Congressman Denny Rehberg went to the House floor to make a statement about the phantom congressional districts in Montana, posted his comments on YouTube and his Facebook page, and even put a news release about the issue on his website.
The Montana media still didn&rsquo;t see a story.
&nbsp;
Some watchdogs.
&nbsp;
Fortunately, people are able to bypass the media and get information these days from other sources when their local media outlets decide not to report on issues that their readers care about.
&nbsp;
That&rsquo;s how many of you found out about this issue from news sources around the nation and the few local media outlets to pick up the story like the Big Sky Business Journal and Aaron Flint&rsquo;s Northern Broadcasting radio program.
&nbsp;
It&rsquo;s unlikely all the other editors and news producers in Montana were not aware of this issue. And with the coverage from major media outlets, it would be hard to argue this was not newsworthy. So where was the coverage?
&nbsp;
Whatever their personal opinions, editors and producers have a responsibility to their readers and viewers to bring them information of interest on important issues.
&nbsp;
Ignoring legitimate news in this era does not keep everyone in the dark.
&nbsp;
Instead, it shines a light on the thought process and priorities of a news media that all-too-often only finds one side of a story fit to print.]]></description><pubDate>November 20, 2009, 8:20 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=61</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>The Price of Freedom - It Isn't Free</title><description><![CDATA[(Note: The following was adapted from a speech given in Kalispell)
The Price of Freedom -- It Isn&rsquo;t Free (Sen. Joe Balyeat)
&nbsp;
Abraham Lincoln said, &ldquo;Those who would deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.&rdquo; 

With the passage of another 9/11 anniversary this last week, I figured tonight would be a good time to reflect upon our Freedom as Americans; and the price paid for that Freedom. 

When I was asked to give this speech about Freedom, I accepted immediately because Freedom happens to be my favorite topic. I even wear these cardboard signs in our local parade: &ldquo;Will Work For Freedom&rdquo;. 

But of course, while I&rsquo;m always ready to talk about freedom; I also contemplated potential problems giving this sort of speech -- Am I speaking to hash-pipe hippies who want to legalize marijuana, or soldiers preparing for duty in Iraq? Admittedly, &ldquo;Freedom&rdquo; means entirely different things to those two audiences. And each one of you in this audience has your own individual priority as to which particular freedoms you cherish most.

Again, freedom means different things to different people. But my freedom to pursue those things which I enjoy, my freedom to practice those values which I hold dear is only as secure as your freedom to do the things that you enjoy and value dearly. In our pluralistic American society it&rsquo;s not likely that we&rsquo;ll all have the same values and enjoy the same pursuits. But we do need to all drink from the common cup of Freedom. If I let your freedom be sacrificed to the politically correct social gods, or the regulation-happy government gods, then my freedoms will no doubt be the next target. And in fact, even before that occurs, my freedom has already been diminished the moment I stood silently by and acquiesced to the quashing of your liberty. 

The downhill slide from Freedom is a very slippery slope.&nbsp; I can&rsquo;t naively think it&rsquo;s going to magically stop just short of my pet passion. So our values may vary, but we&rsquo;re in this Freedom ship together. We sink or swim as a society. And especially after 9/11, it&rsquo;s perhaps a little too easy for us to sacrifice a little freedom for the sake of greater societal security. But Ben Franklin warned us&nbsp; &ldquo;Those who would trade freedom for security will soon find that they have lost both, and deserve neither.&rdquo; 

Thankfully, I think most of us here today recognize the potential danger of trying to achieve societal safety by sacrificing our constitutional rights barring unwarranted search and seizure -- the dangerous notion that it&rsquo;s okay for our own government to treat us all like criminals, so long as they do catch the few who really are criminals. 
But, unfortunately, far fewer of us recognize that we are trading freedom for security every day in Helena and Washington DC. How? Why don&rsquo;t we recognize it? Because the freedoms we are sacrificing are not our own: We willingly sacrifice the rich guy&rsquo;s freedom to keep and spend his own earnings&hellip; so that we can tax and spend it to make ourselves more secure in our government programs. We willingly sacrifice the landowner&rsquo;s freedom to do what he wants with his own property, in order that we might be more secure in our environment. 

Let me be clear &ndash; I won&rsquo;t go so far tonight as to say there is no place for government social programs or regulations. But what I am saying is that we at least need to recognize what&rsquo;s happening; understand the trade-off&nbsp; that increased societal security always comes at the expense of somebody&rsquo;s freedom. There&rsquo;s no such thing as a free lunch&hellip; because Freedom isn&rsquo;t free. 

Permit me to digress for a few minutes. I wear this sign not as a catchy campaign slogan, but because I believe deeply in individual freedom and responsibility &ndash; I believe in the free enterprise system and the free marketplace of ideas as well. Have you ever wondered what the &ldquo;free&rdquo; in &ldquo;free enterprise&rdquo; is all about? In the private sector, you have transactions where both parties benefit &ndash; what we egghead accountants call an &ldquo;arms length transaction&rdquo;, where neither party is coerced, each party enters into it of their own free will, to exchange for something which they value more highly than what they gave up. That&rsquo;s the &ldquo;free&rdquo; part of free enterprise- both parties making a free will transaction which mutually benefits both parties. That&rsquo;s how free enterprise creates wealth. But government does not operate like free enterprise. There can be no freedom to participate or abstain. Government uses threat of law to extract taxes, to diminish property rights, and to coerce compliance with regulations. It can&rsquo;t function like free enterprise because it can&rsquo;t permit free choice to participate- the very premise of government is coercion. This is why the whole notion of government creating jobs is ludicrous &ndash; If they hadn&rsquo;t confiscated the tax dollars from the private sector in the first place, that money would&rsquo;ve created more jobs left in the private sector, where freedom itself and free will transactions guide spending into the most efficient and beneficial economic activities. On the Senate floor I often need to use illustrations, preferably understandable by a third-grader. I&rsquo;ve argued that government jobs programs are like a gravely sick man, lying in the intensive care ward, trying to make himself better by a blood transfusion from his right arm to his left arm&hellip; and using a leaky transfusion tube to boot. Precisely because government does not function based on freedom and freewill transactions, government creates nothing &ndash; it only confiscates and reallocates. Government creates nothing, certainly not jobs.

Let me take a minute to clarify for you why left wing ideology is anti-freedom by it&rsquo;s very nature, and why it fosters over-taxation and over- regulation. Theirs is a worldview which consistently sacrifices the individual for the sake of what is deemed to be societal good. Since government doesn&rsquo;t operate based on free will transactions where both parties win, they must instead sacrifice individual benefits and rights in favor of alleged larger societal good. The Founding Father&rsquo;s proclamation of God-ordained rights to life, liberty, and property is rejected in favor of a false notion that society can only succeed at the expense of individual success. Under this ideology, an individual&rsquo;s hard-earned material goods (his property) are taxed away from him for the sake of funding societal programs and for the sake of &ldquo;equalizing&rdquo; everybody. An individual&rsquo;s freedom of thought and action (his liberty) is regulated away from him for the sake of maintaining a politically correct societal order. And, under this ideology, I would argue with respect to abortion and euthanasia, that an individual&rsquo;s life is robbed from him for the sake of societal &ldquo;choice&rdquo;. Life, liberty, and property &ndash; all three violated based on the false notion that government can create something better than what we would&rsquo;ve done freely if left to decide for ourselves how best to spend our own resources.

It&rsquo;s an ideology of human sacrifice &ndash; sacrificing individual rights to life, liberty, and property for the perceived better good of society at large. And, of course, most all of us here know that this is a false choice, that society succeeds best when it&rsquo;s individual members have freedom to pursue their own livelihoods and own liberties in the context of free enterprise and free intellectual markets as well. In fact, the danger of this false choice between societal good and individual freedom is that such an ill-conceived philosophy actually backfires and slowly destroys the society as well. A society which has no respect for individual rights &ndash; life, liberty, and property rights &ndash; is a society which will soon be corrupted from both the top and the bottom &ndash; despotism from the top, and lawlessness from the bottom. And we already see the increasing evidence that both are occurring in America today.

Now, after briefly digressing on that tangent, I&rsquo;ll close by going back to our discussion about the trade off between freedom and security.

Let me see a show of hands &ndash; how many military or ex-military folks are in the audience tonight? On my plane flight back from Alaska, I sat next to a young man who just got out of the Marines, after a tour in Afghanistan. He said, &ldquo;I consider myself very liberal politically, but I fear what is happening in our country right now &ndash; we&rsquo;re trading freedom for security.&rdquo;

Our military personnel know that they&rsquo;ve paid a high price in blood and sweat down through the decades so that we might remain free. They know that freedom isn&rsquo;t free. Both the military and civilian lawmakers such as myself are vital branches of government. But while those in uniform affect Freedom positively; I&rsquo;m often saddened to see that those in my civilian branch of government almost always impact Freedom negatively. 

While fighting forces have bled and died to gain and defend freedom; the politicians trade it off piecemeal daily. We regulate, we legislate, we restrict, we register, we rule, we license, we codify, we certify, we confiscate, reallocate, we permit, we penalize, we subsidize, we tax, we take, we bar, we ban. And a little freedom slips away with every law we pass. You may not notice it of course because it was someone else&rsquo;s freedom this time; and it&rsquo;s always for a good cause, to make us more secure&hellip; right? We at least need to recognize what&rsquo;s happening; understand the trade-off&nbsp; that increased societal security always comes at the expense of somebody&rsquo;s freedom. There&rsquo;s no such thing as a free lunch.

Walter Judd said Americans are too quick &ldquo;to trade the freedom of the robin for the freedom of the canary. The canary is free from danger&hellip; the cat can&rsquo;t get him. And free from hunger&hellip; his food is set there every day. But there he sits in his cage; while it is the robin who is truly free.&rdquo; 

Which do we want in Montana -- the secure false &ldquo;freedom&rdquo; of the canary; or the true Freedom of the robin? As a lifelong self-reliant Montanan, I suspect it is the latter; and if we truly understood the trade-offs; that &ldquo;freedom isn&rsquo;t free&rdquo;, and that freedom is sacrificed incrementally each time we extract more &ldquo;security&rdquo; from government; we would elect leaders in Montana who take us down the path of Freedom. Thank you. God Bless.

Sen. Joe Balyeat is Chairman of the Senate Taxpayer Protection Caucus, serves on the board of the MT Shooting Sports Association, and represents Broadwater and North Gallatin County in the Montana Senate. 
&nbsp;]]></description><pubDate>October 22, 2009, 3:32 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=60</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Government Stimulus Falling Short</title><description><![CDATA[Ed. Note: This is part of an occasional series of guest blogs from political and opinion leaders throughout the state.&nbsp; This article was sent to us from Rep. Rehberg's office and represents his views.&nbsp; 
In February, Congress passed a so-called stimulus bill that was designed to take credit for any economic recovery occurring over the next decade.

That's why the stimulus is spread out over ten long years. That's why its proponents are spending $18 million for a website to promote it and millions more on highway road signs to remind drivers where their money is being spent. That's why there are employees on the government payroll whose jobs are to canvas each state with press releases announcing each dollar spent. When the economy improves you can be sure that opportunistic politicians will claim credit as if they called for the sun to rise.
Whether the stimulus is actually helping the economy is a much different story. Although the stimulus was sold to the American people as a &quot;jobs bill,&quot; national unemployment continues to increase. In September, it reached 9.8 percent, a 26-year high. Montana's unemployment rate was 5.6 percent before the stimulus passed. Today, it's 6.6 percent.
From the start, I warned this stimulus was a bad deal for rural states like Montana. For every $100 the &quot;stimulus&quot; program spends, Montana's share is not even enough to buy a postage stamp.
It's evident the massive stimulus that was rammed through Congress has not lived up to even the most pessimistic predictions of its supporters.

Before the bill passed, the president's own economists warned us that unemployment would increase if we did nothing. Yet unemployment today is even higher than they said it would be if we did nothing.
What some in Congress fail to realize is that economic recovery will not come from the government, but from the sweat and hard work of individuals. Government can best help stimulate that process by empowering Americans to get the gears of commerce spinning again.
The stimulus has effectively taken money out of the economy at a time when we need it most. In fact, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that each dollar of stimulus spending has generated less than a dollar of economic growth. Simply stated, the only thing that has grown is the government.
If a rapid recovery had been the goal, the stimulus would have followed the successful policies of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan who cut taxes and empowered consumers and small businesses. That's the sort of stimulus I supported - one that was timely, targeted, temporary and transparent.
Instead, the goal of this stimulus was to merely claim credit for any economic recovery while enabling more government spending. If it didn't go toward improving the economy, it's worth asking where the nearly $1 trillion went - especially since our kids and grandkids are on the hook to repay it.
When referring to the current recession, the President's Chief of Staff observed that &quot;you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.&quot; Acting on this philosophy, Congress made what it called &quot;a down payment&quot; on the unprecedented expansion of government into every facet of American life.
After eight months, government agencies and funding recipients are already complaining about funding &quot;cuts&quot; when the stimulus runs out. In true Orwellian fashion, these huge increases in government spending will seem like cuts as the end of the stimulus infusion brings artificially inflated budgets back to reality.
One thing we can control is the level of spending in Washington, D.C.
and the role of government in our day-to-day lives. We can start by reclaiming hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent stimulus money that's currently sitting in the accounts of various federal agencies and bureaus - and apply these extra funds to the National Debt. I've sponsored legislation that would do just that.
It's time to ask for our money back. It's time to put our country on a true path to economic recovery.
&nbsp;]]></description><pubDate>October 7, 2009, 9:30 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=59</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>What's Going on in Hardin?</title><description><![CDATA[This is a strange one.&nbsp; I don't have any answers but something goofy is going on in Hardin.&nbsp; The AP story we've got in today's roundup doesn't say much so we're looking a little deeper ourselves.&nbsp; Suffice it to say that, while we don't really do conspiracy theories, there are enough strange coincidences and information gaps in this one that we're going to dig a little deeper.
Here are some of the things we're wondering about:

    Why do the black mercedes have Hardin Police emblems?&nbsp; And where did the emblems come from?&nbsp; They don't look like traditional police symbols.
    Where's the sherrif in all this?
    Who will be coming to the prison?
    Who will be using the training ground and airfield?
    Where's the money coming from?

The last question is generally the one that results in answers, so that's where we'll be focusing our efforts.
That's all for now but stay tuned...]]></description><pubDate>September 30, 2009, 10:39 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=58</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Cap and Trade and Montana</title><description><![CDATA[Cap and Trade
By Rep. Bob Lake
There&rsquo;s little doubt that the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill will have a negative impact on our economy. Economists on both sides of the issue agree that it will, the question they&rsquo;re debating is by what degree. It&rsquo;s amazing to me that in one of the economically-weakest points in our country&rsquo;s history, Congress would be contemplating passing legislation that all agree would make things worse.
The experts are projecting losses to our GDP and job growth and at the same time higher prices for consumers for gasoline, electricity, and consumer goods. The double-whammy of declines in jobs and higher prices for consumers can only serve to make our economic situation worse and slow our recovery.
What are the impacts we can expect here in Montana? Considering that our second-biggest industry in much of the state is energy-production and our largest industry, agriculture, depends on significant energy inputs, it could be disastrous.
As I&rsquo;ve been watching this proposals&rsquo; progress, which will now be considered by the US Senate, one of the things I&rsquo;ve been contemplating is what impact it could have on our state tax revenues. Most people recognize that in recent years we&rsquo;ve been in a relatively rosy budgetary situation, with at one point having a 1.4 billion budget surplus.
A large factor in our growth has been a healthy influx of tax revenues from the increased oil and gas activity in eastern Montana. We&rsquo;ve had increases directly from the oil and gas severance taxes and property taxes but also indirectly in the form of income taxes from all the new, high-paying jobs in the oil fields of Eastern Montana. Our state also has significant revenues from coal production (though not nearly what the state of Wyoming realizes).
I fear that a lot of those tax revenues will dry up in very short order under a cap and trade scenario.
A bigger challenge we face is that the influx of tax revenue we&rsquo;ve had in recent years has fueled an unprecedented growth in state government. The new funding that has been added to state government during the good times now become ongoing obligations we somehow need to fund in future years. That leaves two options: increase taxes to offset a reduction in energy-related taxes or start cutting government services.
If we increase taxes, we&rsquo;re turning that double-whammy (reduced job growth and higher consumer prices) into a triple-whammy by adding a potential increased tax burden on homeowners or income taxpayers. If we reduce services the needy will suffer and the triple turns into a quad.
As for agriculture our #1 industry, cap and trade is going to hit small producers (which make up the vast majority of Montana operators) inordinately hard. Most ag businesses have very little opportunity to pass on their increased energy input costs on to consumers. Cap and trade will make fuel, fertilizer, and feed costs all increase at the mercy of the market. Inevitably, we will all be forced to pay more for our food because of these higher costs.
We all know the thin margins most ag operations already operate on. Cap and trade could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels&rsquo; back for a lot of family farms and ranches.
Don&rsquo;t get me wrong, there are benefit&rsquo;s to reducing our nation&rsquo;s carbon emissions. Reducing those emissions comes with a cost, and right now Montana is in a position to be hit harder than most other states based on the current legislation already passed by the House and on its way to the Senate.
There are other options available. I urge Senator Baucus and Senator Tester to work to develop a better bill that will actually improve conditions in Montana. The Waxman-Markey bill certainly does not.]]></description><pubDate>September 15, 2009, 10:31 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=57</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>The Death Tax and MT Jobs</title><description><![CDATA[Here's an interesting study we came across recently.&nbsp; It's from the American Family Business Institute, and it talks about the jobs impact of inheritance taxes.

MONTANA COULD ADD 5,900 NEW JOBS
AT NO COST TO TAXPAYERS

Montana could add some 5,900 new jobs at no cost to taxpayers if the federal estate tax were repealed, according to a new analysis.
The estimates are based on research by the former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. The research was conducted for the nonprofit American Family Business Foundation (AFBF), Washington, DC.
Holtz-Eakin, who served as chairman of the economics department at Syracuse University before going to Washington, estimated in his study that repeal of the Estate Tax, which impacts mostly small and family business owners and the owners of family farms, would lead to an increase of 1.5 million jobs nationwide. The state estimate is calculated based on the percentage of small-business jobs nationally located in Montana.
Under current law, the estate tax is assessed at a 45 percent rate on assets in an estate exceeding $3.5 million. Legislation passed during the Bush administration has slated the tax to sunset &ndash; or expire &ndash; at the end of 2009, only to return in 2011 at a higher rate.
Congress is expected to take some action on the estate tax this fall, before the &ldquo;sunset&rdquo; provision kicks in. In his first budget proposal, President Obama proposed a permanent estate tax rate of 45 percent on estates valued over $3.5 million. Some lawmakers are pressing to raise the rate and lower the exclusion, while others would like to do just the reverse.

Many of the Bush tax cuts are slated to expire soon, and most of them will with the current D.C. leadership and the government's fiscal state.&nbsp; That point has kind of slipped below the radar with all the massive tax and spending programs being proposed.&nbsp;
It'll be too bad if we accept this and other tax increases as a fallback position to stopping government takeovers of energy, health care and everything else.&nbsp; For anyone who thinks it's time to compromise and minimize damages, isn't this compromise enough?]]></description><pubDate>September 4, 2009, 12:04 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=56</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>New angle on ending our oil dependency</title><description><![CDATA[This comes from an organization called Secure Our Fuels.&nbsp; I frankly don't know much about them and am talking about their efforts here on the blog because I don't have time to dig into their background or independently verify their numbers.&nbsp; They're also running ads in Montana so they obviously have an agenda.&nbsp; And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that so long as what they're saying is truthful and fair, and we have no indication that it isn't.&nbsp;
So with that namby&nbsp;pamby introduction,&nbsp;just what's their point that's worth talking about here?&nbsp;&nbsp;It's mainly that Congress is looking at cutting off 90% Montana's gasoline supply.&nbsp; Well, not cutting it off but making it come from someplace else and making it more expensive.&nbsp; I'm going to selectively cut&nbsp;and paste a little rather&nbsp;than&nbsp;trying to&nbsp;paraphrase or quote.&nbsp;&nbsp;The bold is mine.&nbsp; You can get the full text&nbsp;at their web site.&nbsp;
&quot;New Campaign Seeks to Educate Montanans on Negative Impacts of a Nationwide Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
&ldquo;In any form, a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard would represent a major blow to America&rsquo;s economic health and strategic position,&rdquo; said CEA&rsquo;s Michael Whatley, a leading expert on LCFS proposals. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s because the energy we import daily from friends like Canada would essentially be prohibited from crossing our border. If these abundant resources are cut off, our dependence on unstable regions of the world would skyrocket, and so would the price American consumers pay at the pump.
Added Whatley: &ldquo;More than 90 percent of the oil Montana consumers depend on each day comes from Canada &ndash; energy that would be banned from crossing the U.S. border under an LCFS. As such, this campaign seeks to alert everyday Montanans about the serious implications of this policy, and enlist their support in ensuring it does not come to pass.&rdquo; 
&nbsp;
So tell me again how we're supposed to get off foreign oil&nbsp;(I don't count Canada as foreign.&nbsp; They drink LaBatt's for crying out loud)?&nbsp; What happens to people who are just getting by when their gas bills skyrocket?&nbsp; Where's all that compassion for the little guy?&nbsp;
Just one more brick on the double-talk pile from people whose real agenda is to control how we live, what we buy, how we drive, what we pay,&nbsp;what we say,&nbsp;and everything else.&nbsp;&nbsp;They say they want to reduce our energy dependence, but what they really want to do is reduce our energy, no matter what the cost to our economy.
There is no credible evidence that &quot;green&quot; jobs will outnumber jobs lost if energy prices skyrocket, as they inevitably would under proposals like this and its cap and trade bretheren.&nbsp; If there's a market for this stuff the private sector looking to line its own evil pockets will find and satisfy that market, and satisfly consumers and manage the resources behind it in the process.&nbsp; Anything else is just robbing from Peter to pay Paul, with special interests and Washington insiders deciding who's Peter and who's Paul.
They're just so much smarter than us.&nbsp; If only we'd just sit back and not&nbsp;worry our pretty little heads about anything but paying our taxes life would be good.&nbsp; Well, it'd be good for the insiders and special interests making the rules.&nbsp; The rest of us can eat cake.]]></description><pubDate>September 1, 2009, 9:21 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=55</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Cost of Congressional Mass Mailings Examined</title><description><![CDATA[BOZEMAN &ndash; The next time you get a piece of mail from one of your federal
representatives you may want to take time to read it &ndash; after all, you&rsquo;re
paying for it.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MPI checked with the offices of both senators and the state&rsquo;s lone
congressman to see how much they spent on mass mailing to residents
in 2008.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Officials from the three offices reported a combined spending more
than $90,000 on mass mailings.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Senator Max Baucus led the way with $44,430.98, according to an
emailed response from his office. An official from Senator Jon
Tester&rsquo;s office reported spending of $27,006.54. Both senators
reported spending for the fiscal year 2008, which ran from October 1,
2007 to September 30, 2008.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An official from Congressman Denny Rehberg&rsquo;s office reported spending
for the calendar year 2008 in the amount of $19,623.79.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Senators are allowed a total of $50,000 each year for mass mail,
according to officials from both senate offices. Members of the house
are given a total allocation for their offices but not a fixed amount
for spending on mailers. The total allowance for congressmen is about
half of the total allocation for senators, according to Jed Link,
communications director for Congressman Rehberg.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An official from Sen. Tester&rsquo;s office said the amount reported from
their office covered postage and design.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Officials from the office of Sen. Baucus did not respond to repeated
requests for comment or a breakdown of spending on the mailers.
&nbsp;]]></description><pubDate>August 27, 2009, 10:17 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=54</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Gallup Poll: We Don't Want Health Care Takeover</title><description><![CDATA[Here are some findings from&nbsp;Gallup on Americans' opinions of health care reform, released 7/31/09.
Their basic findings are that:

    Most&nbsp;Americans do not believe that the U.S. healthcare system is in a state of crisis. The economy outweighs healthcare as the most pressing problem facing the country and in Americans' personal lives.
    Americans are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them personally. This is, in part, because most Americans are satisfied with their current medical care and access to healthcare. Seniors in particular are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them.
    Americans agree that healthcare costs are a major problem for the country. Americans do not, however, believe that healthcare reform would lessen costs -- neither for the system as a whole nor for individuals.
    The push for healthcare reform is occurring in an environment characterized by high levels of concern about fiscal responsibility, government spending, and the growing federal deficit. Americans are being asked to approve major new healthcare expenditures at a time when they are not yet convinced that the last massive outlay of government money -- the stimulus -- has made an impact.
    Americans have relatively little confidence in Congress and thus, by inference, little confidence that Congress can effectively and efficiently reform the country's massive healthcare system.
    Americans continue to have more confidence in President Obama on healthcare issues than in either the Democrats or Republicans in Congress. Obama's political capital, however, is waning.
    Americans have mixed or ambivalent views of the role government should have in healthcare. They favor some government involvement, but not a government-run healthcare system.
    On a case-by-case basis, Americans favor many specific proposals that have been put forth as ways of reforming healthcare.
    Despite positive views of many specific reform proposals, Americans appear ambivalent at this juncture on the overall merits of passing a broad healthcare plan.
    All in all, while the majority of Americans ultimately favor passage of healthcare reform, many are willing to wait until next year to see it happen. 

So, what was that big rush about again?&nbsp; Americans are ambivilent at best about jamming a hugely expensive government-run health care system down our throat.&nbsp;
Let's take some time and get it right.&nbsp; And let's do it in a way that addresses access and cost while preserving choice and not bloating government.&nbsp;
Proponents of 'go now, go fast' are using things like government options and mandates as way stations on the path to a single payer system, as articulated quite well by Rep. Barney Frank here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98
It's a dishonest approach but the only one that has a chance of working.&nbsp;
Too bad for our system.
Check out our Free Market Health Care Forum in Bozeman on the 14th.&nbsp; We'll have 
real experts talking about ways to fix the coverage, access and cost problems
without turning over our lives to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.
See the complete poll at Gallup's site here.]]></description><pubDate>August 1, 2009, 1:59 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=53</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Montana's Costs of Government-Run Health Care</title><description><![CDATA[We just got this report from Lewin Group through the Heritage Foundation.&nbsp; It details the costs to Montanans of the most current single payer legislation working its way through congress.
Highlights include:
In Montana, the impact of the health care bill on private coverage, the uninsured, physicians and hospitals is as follows:

    52 percent of privately insured Montana residents would transition out of private insurance.
    
    62 percent of Montana residents with employer-based coverage would lose their current insurance.
    
    80 percent of Montana residents in a health insurance exchange would end up in the public plan.
    
    32 percent of the uninsured in Montana would still lack coverage.
    
    Physicians in Montana could see their net annual income decline by $36.6 million, an average loss in income of $13,877 per physician.
    
    Hospitals in Montana could have their net annual income fall by about $268.5 million, with hospital total margins dropping to -4 percent.

Pretty scary stuff.&nbsp; 
Come to our Free Market Health Care Forum on the 14th in Bozeman to find out more and get the information you need to argue against a government takeover of nearly 20% of our economy, and a lot bigger percentage of our freedoms.
&nbsp;]]></description><pubDate>July 29, 2009, 11:19 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=52</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Out of State Progressives Targeting Our Sen. Baucus</title><description><![CDATA[I got this in an email today and thought it worth sharing: 
&quot;Progressive Groups, Supporters, Go After Baucus In New Ad Buy July 21 
&quot;* 9AM Progressive groups are launching a new round of advertising against Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, (D-Mont.), in an effort to persuade him to support a public option. The Montana Democrat was the (unfortunate) winner of a contest sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America, in which the groups allowed members to choose which senator to target in an ad campaign. 
&quot;Baucus has, at times, indicated he supports a government run plan but it is not certain if the proposal will make it into the final version of his committee's bill. For this, 15,000 progressive voters determined that he should get an additional bit of political pressure. 
&quot;The ads being run against the senator, which will air in three media markets in Montana -- Billings, Butte-Bozeman, and Helena - are duplicates of an old PCCC spot. Only it is customized for Baucus, pointing to the $3.9 million he has taken from &quot;health and insurance interests.&quot; 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=izNe4Bw_Ars&amp;feature=player_embedded 
&quot;According to PCCC co-founder Adam Green, the ad will be broadcast for the first week of airing on broadcast TV during news shows, with an eye towards raising money for a second week after that. The choosing of Baucus as the target of the spot is an interesting reflection of where the progressive sentiment lies in regards to the current debate over health care reform. There were, arguably, other senators whose skepticism of a public plan makes them more deserved targets, notably Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.). But Baucus plays a unique role in crafting health care legislation. 
&quot;And while he has a reputation of being turned off -- as opposed to influenced -- by political attacks, roughly 23 percent of the nearly 64,000 progressive voters determined over a ten-day period that ads should be run in his home state. Perhaps an equally noteworthy aspect of the voting: Sen. John Kerry, (D-Mass.), was second in the running with more than 13,000 voters (20 percent) calling for ads to be run against him in Massachusetts.&quot; 
Now, I'm not on board with Sen. Baucus's health care reform ideas, but the idea of a bunch of out of staters buying up the airwaves to put pressure on him rankles me a bit. 
We need to keep the pressure on and and tell him that his constituents are against government run health care regardless of what they think at the Huffington Post or wherever. 
Our Health Care Freedom Forum in Bozeman on August 14th will provide ammunition and tools to argue for consumer driven health care reform. We'll have agenda and registration info up on our site within a few days. Make it if you can, but at least write a letter if you can't. 
Let Sen Baucus (and Tester for that matter) know that he represents Montana, not the deep pocketed Left. ]]></description><pubDate>July 21, 2009, 3:32 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=51</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Council Members sue for more open process in Missoula</title><description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Three city council members in Missoula have filed a lawsuit against the city asking a court to address their concerns about a rezoning effort.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The three plaintiffs say the rezoning project is not being conducted in an open manner and in accordance with state law or city ordinance.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; City Communications Director Ginny Merriam said the mayor has not been served with the lawsuit, and that city officials are reserving comment until they are served and able to review the suit with the city attorney.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;We&rsquo;ll certainly be talking about it once we are served,&rdquo; Merriam said.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On Friday the three council members filed suit, stating they believe &ldquo;the supporters of the rezoning effort have circumvented the governing statutes and ignored the City&rsquo;s own regulations,&rdquo; according to a media release from their attorney.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Specifically, the three charge that those involved in the rezoning effort have ignored the city&rsquo;s own guidelines as established by ordinance. Further they state that the City&rsquo;s Planning Board/Zoning Commission State has failed to consider state zoning law that requires the City to use certain mandatory technical criteria when adopting or changing zoning regulations and zoning districts.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The group is also concerned that residents have not been kept adequately informed about the process.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;Those interested in cramming this rezoning effort through without adequate notice and informed public participation have been playing semantic name games,&rdquo; City Council Member for Ward 5, Dick Haines said in the group&rsquo;s media release. &ldquo;Calling the process a &lsquo;simple rewrite&rsquo; of current zoning regulations does not change the fact that the rezoning supporters are changing density requirements, allowable uses, and many other factors that will greatly affect the residents&rsquo; property rights and value.&rdquo;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lyn Hellegaard, City Council Member for Ward 4 and Renee G. Mitchell, City Council Member for Ward 5 are the two other council members joining in the suit.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The lawsuit requests a Writ of Mandate, which is a remedy that allows the District Court to direct the City of Missoula to follow the law, according to the release. In Lowe v. City of Missoula, 165 Mont. 38, 525 P.2d 551 (1974), the Supreme Court ruled against the City of Missoula when the City refused to follow the State zoning laws.]]></description><pubDate>July 14, 2009, 2:55 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=50</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>