<?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>The War on Small Business</title><description><![CDATA[So we've got financial reform now.&nbsp; Boy we really stuck it to those big banks.&nbsp; Never mind that they were lobbying in favor of the bill that passed and gave tens of millions of dollars to the politicians who supported it.&nbsp; I'm sure we're sticking it to them.
And we got health care reform.&nbsp; Boy we really stuck it to Pharma and big insurance.&nbsp; Never mind that Pharma spent (and is spending) hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for, advertising in favor of, and supporting candidates who supported the reform bill.&nbsp; And never mind that big insurance (and AARP, one of the biggest health insurance providers in the country) lobbied for and supported it once they got their guaranteed customer pool through mandates.&nbsp; And never mind that big businesses like Walmart supported it from the beginning knowing full well that paying for employee insurance and doing all that paperwork will be way more expensive for those annoying small town competitors than it will be for huge corporations like them.&nbsp; But I'm sure we're sticking it to them now.
And we're working on cap-and-trade.&nbsp; Boy we'll really stick it to those energy companies.&nbsp; Never mind that BP and other oil companies were early and avid supporters of taxing themselves and then getting massive subsidies for more expensive and more profitible renewable energy schemes.&nbsp; And never mind that AIG, the Chicago Board of Trade and others have billions of dollars tied up in energy credit trading.&nbsp; And of course never mind that little mom and pop outfits like GE and many more multi-billion dollar corporations have invested millions in lobbying and billions in technologies that they expect to get paid back through cap-and-trade subsidies.&nbsp; I'm sure we'll really stick it to them in the end.
Yes we're really sticking it to big business.&nbsp; They're going to make billions in subsidies and bailouts, but by golly they're not going to be able to dupe people into borrowing more than they can afford or into&nbsp;buying insurance that fits their individual needs instead of everyone else's, on average; that is until big business is the only game in town.
Unfortunately all of these reforms come with huge paperwork and compliance costs.&nbsp; Small banks, even though they had nothing to do with the financial crisis, will still have to create massive amounts of reports and comply with increased capital and insurance mandates.&nbsp; Small businesses will have to spend billions tracking sales and purchases, as well as what they provide for employee&nbsp;health insurance.&nbsp; Big businesses can absorb this kind of overhead, but for small banks and businesses it'll be crippling, especially when they won't be able to pass the costs on to consumers since the big boys won't have the same marginal costs.
What we're seeing is the systematic elimination of small business in this country.&nbsp; The barriers to entry will be so high, and the cost of complying with regulation so stringent, that small businesses will be unable to make any return on their investments.&nbsp; Many existing businesses will simply close up shop.&nbsp; Community banks will retrench into niche markets and leave home loans and other products to large national chains, or just get bought up by Wall Street banks.&nbsp; New entrepreneurs will look at the barriers to entering the marketplace and do something else - probably get a government job since that's virtually the only sector guaranteed to grow.&nbsp;
The end of this path lies in a business/government partnership where large corporations operate under the umbrella of government protection and direction.&nbsp; There's a name for that, but I don't want to be incendiary.&nbsp; Look to 1920s Italy for an example.]]></description><pubDate>July 19, 2010, 9:22 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=77</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>The Power of an Idea</title><description><![CDATA[I was recently asked by a national organization to address our founding as part of a project they're doing on perspectives from around the country.&nbsp; It seems like a good idea so thought I'd share my response.&nbsp; I'll try to remember to post the link to the entire project when it's complete.
&nbsp;

What do you think was the most important idea of the Founders?
&nbsp;
The Founders' most important idea was to believe in the power of ideas.&nbsp; They knew that a nation had to be bigger than any single person or a place; that there had to be something to embody and to propel a people forward or they would lapse into tyranny or anarchy.&nbsp;That &quot;something&quot; was the idea that we all have a basic inalienable right to seek happiness and fulfillment in any way that doesn't deny the opportunity for others to do the same.&nbsp;This not only produced a very simple rule book in the form of a constitution that protects rather than grants rights, but it created a system where individuals are rewarded for productive, innovative, and moral behavior rather than for birthrights or bloodlust.
&nbsp;
A system based on ideas is also welcoming to anyone who shares those values regardless of skin color, religion, or means.&nbsp;It opens its arms to the most innovative and productive people to not just share but to participate in the prosperity and the governance of a nation that's ruled by law, governed by principle, and led by ideas.&nbsp;Our shining city on the hill has lost much of its luster as we've become lazy and confuse equality of outcome with equality of opportunity.&nbsp;But we are still united by a set of ideas and ideals that the Founders passed down.&nbsp;Our success or failure will be determined by how well we honor their vision.
]]></description><pubDate>July 2, 2010, 11:29 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=76</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Even GE CEO Gets the Costs of Overregulation</title><description><![CDATA[According to an article I can't link to in the Financial Times&nbsp;because I'm not a subscriber, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt said, among other things, the following:

&quot;We are a pathetic exporter...We have to become an industrial powerhouse again but you don't do this when government and entrepreneurs are not in synch.&quot;

GE itself, as one of the country's foremost rent seekers at the Global Warming subsidy trough, immediately disclaimed any and all association to Immelt's remarks.&nbsp; But it gives you an idea of what these companies that want to profit at our expense through government intervention and regulation really know versus what they're willing to say for a seat at the table.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal that I can link to but you probably can't unless you're a subscriber (and you should be):

Turning to the administration of President Barack Obama, Mr. Immelt expressed concern that new regulation would hinder a &quot;tepid&quot; U.S. economic recovery and complained about a &quot;terrible&quot; national mood, according to the FT.

So, according to the CEO of one of the largest manufacturing and service (think NBC) corporations in America, heavy regulation and government interference is hurting our ability to grow and expand overseas.&nbsp; And yet, you'll find no bigger cheerleader (except BP until recently) for cap and trade.&nbsp; And you'll find few larger contributors to the campaigns of cap and trade sponsors in D.C.&nbsp;
I'd like to go on and say something snide about GE but to be honest I can't blame them.&nbsp; They're reacting to incentives, and the incentives when government picks winners and losers is to pay enough to those who do the picking to make sure you're a winner.&nbsp;
It's not rocket science.&nbsp; Campaign finance reform and lobbying reform and any other attempts to take money out of the system is useless if it doesn't address the root cause: If the government has the power to rob Peter to pay Paul, then both Peter and Paul have an incentive to bring money to the table...and they'll always find a way.&nbsp; Remove government's ability to pick winners and losers and neither of them will need to hire lobbyists or finance campaigns.&nbsp;
They'll also be able to put those billions of dollars to productive use that will make them more competitive and provide better products and lower costs.&nbsp; Gee, what a concept.]]></description><pubDate>July 1, 2010, 2:59 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=75</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Political Climate Change</title><description><![CDATA[I nearly filed this under the &quot;Climate Change&quot; category because it's such a huge shift in our environment.&nbsp; But we're talking about a change in the political climate not the color of Gaia.
According to a recent&nbsp;Rasmussen poll,

Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.

As VP Biden would say, this is a big @#$% deal.&nbsp; Going a little deeper, we find that:

    62% believe politicians want the government to have more power and money
    Only 21% believe that government today has the consent of the governed
    52% say it's more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth

This is a tectonic shift from the prevailing&nbsp;attitude of government as a provider rather than a protector of rights that brought us massive entitlements and nanny state regulation, to an attitude of seeing government as a threat to our daily lives and livelihoods.&nbsp; Let's hope it continues and that it manifests itself in November of 2010 and 2012.
This also underlines the points made in Arthur C. Brooks' new book The Battle, in which he argues that those of us who believe in free enterprise and&nbsp;founding principles are in the majority, but we're&nbsp;threatened by a minority of well placed, well heeled culture warriors on the Left promoting European-style statism.&nbsp; If you haven't read this short, fact-filled primer, you should.]]></description><pubDate>June 29, 2010, 11:32 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=74</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Our Role, Their Role</title><description><![CDATA[Driving into town this morning listening to NPR (yes, I listen to NPR but that's a story for another day) they were interviewing Gulf Coast residents following the president's speech last night.
One of the interviews was at any oyster bar in Pensacola, where I spent fourteen weeks&nbsp;getting dipped,&nbsp;dunked,&nbsp;demoralized and ultimately delivered to naval aviation by Staff Sergeant Bowling, USMC; and then another couple of years actually learning the craft.&nbsp; Well, that and working on my tan.
Anyway, the interviews were the typical type your hear until they got to my new personal hero and candidate for president of the world, although I didn't catch her name.&nbsp; When asked if she thought the president struck the right tone she replied:

When he said 'if you see something wrong, tell us and we'll fix it' I would have rather hear him say 'If you see something wrong, fix it and tell us what you did.'

That sentence sums up in my mind the fight we're in right now to maintain our rights and responsibilities and the way of life that made this country great.&nbsp; One side thinks it's the government's job to fix everything that's wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp;They're willing - even anxious - to give up their responsibilities&nbsp;while not realizing that they're also giving&nbsp;up their rights to make choices about how to live their&nbsp;lives in the process.
The other side correctly thinks that our basic rights include the responsibility to look after our own affairs, except in limited areas laid out by the constitution.&nbsp; And even there we have an oversight responsibility.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.]]></description><pubDate>June 16, 2010, 8:06 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=73</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Election Day Musing</title><description><![CDATA[If a musing about a bout doesn't allot a lot of time or deign to ordain a winner, is it amusing?&nbsp; Just askin'.
OK, it's election day.&nbsp; Today is the day that we get to see if grass roots conservatives are on the upswing or the downswing.&nbsp; Right?&nbsp; That's the conventional wisdom: that whether or not the tea party or other grass roots movements can turn out and replace incumbents and/or traditional Republican and Democratic candidates with their preferred candidates will decide whether this is a flash in the pan movement or if it has legs.&nbsp; Well, I'm not so sure it's that simple.&nbsp; Or if that's what really matters over the long haul.
Let's say that every grass roots candidate in the country wins.&nbsp; What would that mean?&nbsp; I'd argue that at the bottom of a deep recession it could simply mean that there are a lot people out there who are upset with &quot;someone,&quot; and that their incumbent is someone they can take their anger out on.&nbsp; Yes, many of those people would be voting for founding principles and against a corrupt and unsustainable system, but I think you can make a pretty strong argument that many of the voters would simply be expressing frustration at the status quo rather than being driven by any philosophical or epistemological view of where the country is and how it got here.
Or, let's say that all the grass roots candidates lose.&nbsp; What would that mean?&nbsp; I think it would mean that Jimmy Carter's malaise speech had finally come true.&nbsp; It would mean that those who understand the situation have given up hope of fixing it;&nbsp;that those who don't understand it&nbsp;have rolled on their backs with their arms and legs up in the air,&nbsp;and that those who profit from the current system had outlasted the rest of us.
But in reality neither of those things is going to happen.&nbsp; Some grass roots candidates will win and some will lose, and for reasons much more varied and complicated than simply whether or not the country has had enough.
Elections, and especially primaries, reflect local conditions as much as national.&nbsp; Candidates matter.&nbsp; A smart, right-minded but inarticulate candidate won't do well.&nbsp; An ignorant or ignoble but articulate one may do better, as we've seen too many times.&nbsp; Some good candidates carry baggage.&nbsp; Some bad candidates carry hope and little else.&nbsp; Local economic and social issues matter.&nbsp; Party and outside interest group attention matters.&nbsp; There are a whole slew of things that can influence individual races that have little to do with the grass roots conservative movement, but over the next week we're going to hear nothing but media yammering over &quot;what it all means&quot; based on a few key races around the state and country.&nbsp; I'd ask you to take a broader view.
Whatever happens in the primaries, it's the general elections that put people in office.&nbsp; And 2010 is important, but 2012 is the one that will tell the tale.&nbsp; Principled conservative victories in 2010 are a necessary but insufficient outcome in returning this country to sound fiscal and constitutional footings.&nbsp; One of my greatest concerns is that the grass roots conservatives will be successful in getting people elected or reelected, and then those people will go to D.C. or Helena and conduct business as usual.&nbsp; If that happens there will be a third Party in 2012, which will split the conservative vote for perhaps a generation or more, and by then we'll have lost.&nbsp;
So I'm not saying take 2010 for granted, but keep your eye on the ball: winning the election doesn't matter if you lose the argument.&nbsp; We need to keep the grass roots conservative movement alive and thriving over the long haul to ensure that those whom we support live up to the principles upon which they ran.]]></description><pubDate>June 8, 2010, 10:15 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=72</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Federal Dollars Result in Less Money</title><description><![CDATA[This is an interesting post in the Wall Street Journal highlighting a Harvard study that basically says free money isn't free (you may need a WSJ subscription to see the entire article).
Here's the relevant quote:

The chairmanship of a powerful Senate committee such as Finance or Appropriations typically brings an increase of 40% to 50% in earmark spending for the home state. In the House, top dogs haul an average of 20% more to their states. Yet in the first year after a chairman's rise, the paper notes, the average firm in his state &quot;cuts back capital expenditures by roughly 15%.&quot; The behavior typically continues until the Congressman steps down, and it is felt in particular by firms that have the strongest ties to the home state.

This crowding out of private investment is a typical unintended consequence of the political allocation of wealth, in other words pork barrel spending to benefit politicians' friends.
So much for bringing home the bacon.]]></description><pubDate>May 27, 2010, 12:19 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=71</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Election Meddling</title><description><![CDATA[According to information dug up by our reporters at www.MontanaWatchdog.org&nbsp; and others, there's some primary election shenanigans going on in the state.
It appears that a D.C.-based group of self-described centrists Republicans (think Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and others) is trying to get like-minded Republicans voted in during Montana's legislative primary elections.&nbsp;
The group is called the Republican Main Street Partnership, and they appear - there's no smoking gun, but you'd have to ignore a lot of coincidences to not see a connection - to be behind the Main Street Fund, which is putting up a very slick ad campaign highlighting one of the candidates in several Republican primary districts.&nbsp; What the districts have in common is that the &quot;other&quot; candidate is very conservative and generally affiliated with the grass roots conservative movement.
Ok, fair's fair.&nbsp; Outside interests come into Montana and other states all the time trying to advance their agendas.&nbsp; But in this case, they came in using a &quot;Montana GOP&quot; name - even though the real Montana GOP denies all knowledge (and I believe them) of the effort, and it seems clear that this group partnered with the SEIU and who knows what other, ahem, non-conservative organizations,&nbsp;to take out the conservative candidates.
This can be seen as nothing short of an attempt to move the legislature to the left in an election year where it otherwise would probably be moving right.&nbsp; If they can take out the highly conservative candidates in solid Republican districts and replace them with &quot;centrist&quot; or &quot;moderate&quot; conservatives, then it has a disproportionate impact on the whole legislature.&nbsp; It's simple physics.
Think of a seesaw.&nbsp; If you chip away some weight near but not on the middle, you change the fulcrum point, but not by much.&nbsp; If you replace the metal seat out on the end with a plastic one, though, you can change the fulcrum point by quite a bit.&nbsp; And it's easier than chopping out a whole bunch of material closer to&nbsp;the&nbsp;center.&nbsp;
They're trying to remove weight from the right end of the political spectrum by electing &quot;centrist&quot; Republicans in conservative districts and thus move the 2011&nbsp;legislature's&nbsp;&quot;center&quot; to the left.&nbsp; It's that simple.]]></description><pubDate>May 26, 2010, 12:28 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=70</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>True Motivations</title><description><![CDATA[As a rule I try not to assign motives to people's actions, especially when I don't agree with them.&nbsp; More often than not it results in making worst-case assumptions about what they're up to and poisons any prospect of agreeing on something in the future.
I've also been a strong believer in the maxim &quot;Never be too quick to rule out stupidity.&quot;&nbsp; A lot of people do stupid things because, well, they're stupid.&nbsp; Or more accurately they're uninformed on an issue.&nbsp; If I recognize this ignorance as the cause of our disagreement rather than assuming bad intentions it gives me the opportunity to make them more informed and bring them to my side.&nbsp; And I generally hope they'll give me the same benefit of the doubt.
But at some point in some cases you do have to rule out ignorance or stupidity and realize that some people mean to do you harm, that they're hiding their true objectives, and that they're willing to lie cheat or steal to achieve them.
Which brings us to&nbsp;many environmentalists.&nbsp; The BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a tragedy for the local environment and economy and a catastrophe (as it should be) for BP.&nbsp; Now come the calls for banning all offshore drilling, past present and future.&nbsp; But is this reaction meant to save the environment from a rare event, or is something else at play?
If the people calling for shutting down offshore oil development were worried primarily about oil spills then they should instead be calling for more onshore and offshore drilling in the US, not less.&nbsp; Oil tanker spills occur much more often and account for many more times the oil released into the environment than what's spilled from drilling rigs.&nbsp; Reducing the number of oil tankers out there by tapping our reserves here at home would result in demonstrably fewer (and smaller) spills than having these relatively fragile gas tanks plying the oceans.
The fig leaf they're using of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and carbon emissions&nbsp;is also belied by their resistance to real measures that address both those issues: increased domestic production, and nuclear and hydro energy.&nbsp;&nbsp;Sure, there are costs involved in these methods, but windmills kill birds and blight the landscape (or seascape if you're a Kennedy), large solar projects endanger desert wildlife; and all of these alternative &quot;green&quot; production methods enormously increase the cost of power, which will inevitably export production, jobs, and prosperity to countries that don't share our reverence for Gaia.
The truth is they want to reduce energy production and consumption period, not make it safer or greener or anything like that.&nbsp; It's not energy they're against it's people and prosperity.&nbsp; They see us as a cancer on the earth that must be contained, and the way to do that is to take our lifestyle and standard of living back to a time when we used fewer resources and had less impact on Mother Earth - a time when people died from simple infections, squatted outside, and had a life expectancy of what we call today&nbsp;&quot;middle age.&quot;&nbsp;
And that's fine.&nbsp; There are even parts of that argument that have real merit.&nbsp; But let's have a conversation about that rather than dancing around the point and attacking people and industries under a hidden agenda and using dishonest tactics.&nbsp; Let's look at the costs and the benefits of all these options and challenges, and above all leave space for people to make decisions about how to achieve their own happiness - so long as they're not harming anyone else - without forcing top down, one size fits all &quot;solutions&quot; down their throats.]]></description><pubDate>May 19, 2010, 9:26 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=69</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Don't make their mistake</title><description><![CDATA[One of the things I'm getting real tired of hearing is that those on&nbsp;the Left or progressives or whatever we're calling them these days are stupid, uninformed, or evil.&nbsp; Some of them undoubtedly are, as are some of those on the pro-freedom side of the spectrum.&nbsp; But just like ignorance, racism and extremism don't define the vast majority of those in our movement, stupidity and malevolence don't define the activating forces behind theirs, either.&nbsp;
Ignoring the vast malleable center whose opinions are defined by whatever arguments make them feel good about themselves and get them through their day, most people fall into one of two camps, both of which have long philosophical pedigrees and solid ideological underpinnings.&nbsp;
Those of us who believe that freedom and happiness flow from natural rights shouldn't fall into the trap of casually dismissing as idiots&nbsp;those who believe that rights are granted by governments which are&nbsp;in turn&nbsp;led by intellectual elites attuned to the needs of the times.&nbsp; Their philosophy is very appealing on its face and even appears compassionate and enlightened, except where it's actually been put into practice.&nbsp;
And it's based on a sincere belief that the rules should&nbsp;change as times&nbsp;change and societies need&nbsp;to adapt to move forward...or to progress.&nbsp; That's why they believe in a living Constitution and&nbsp;that, for example, a Washington bureaucracy is more capable of making your health care decisions than are you and your doctor.&nbsp;
They're not stupid and they don't necessarily want to rule you, although many are in it because it provides a logical basis for grabbing power; the true believers really do think that some set of experts are better at adapting to the times than individuals and so they should be in charge for the betterment of us all.&nbsp; I know that sounds nuttier than a Planters factory to most of us, but trust me on this one.&nbsp; It's true.
The thing is, if we don't understand why their philosophy is appealing on its face&nbsp;and what goes into its assumptions how can we tailor our arguments to oppose it and expose its fallacies?&nbsp; And if we take the intellectually lazy position - as they have with us - that there's no &quot;there&quot; there, then we'll miss an enormous opportunity to fight it on our own terms and with the strengths of our own arguments.&nbsp; That, after all, is what we're seeing from them right now and is the source of whatever optimism we may have that we can still salvage this wreck of fiscal and moral state.
The Left dismisses the new grassroots conservative movement as not worthy of their derision and so continues to overreach with things like health care &quot;reform&quot; cap-and-tax, and other assaults on mainstream American values.&nbsp; They dismiss us as their intellectual and ideological inferiors and assume that, once we see the light, all will be well and they can move ahead.
What they don't understand is that there are sound ideological and philosophical underpinnings to what we believe, that these things can be communicated to&nbsp;and understood by a mass audience, and that they fall in line with the &quot;gut&quot; feelings of most Americans about what the role of government should be in their lives.&nbsp; That carries the potential for an enormous backlash, but only if the Left continues to arrogantly overreach and doesn't figure out that they're putting at risk the enormous incremental progress they've made for their agenda over the past century or so.
So when I see health care pass, when I see cap-and-tax coming back, when I see all the arrogance and dismissive attitudes towards grass roots conservatives, it gives me hope.&nbsp; We haven't won by any stretch of the imagination and we've got a lot of work ahead of us.&nbsp; But they're creating a mass audience of disaffected citizens and making it possible for us to carry on the fight and even to take the offensive.&nbsp; Let's hope they keep their blinders on long enough for us to take everyone else's off.]]></description><pubDate>May 14, 2010, 3:44 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=68</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>The Ticking Debt Bomb</title><description><![CDATA[This just came from a friend of a friend:
&nbsp;

Here&rsquo;s a link to this month&rsquo;s CBO Monthly Budget Review: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11487/April2010MBR.pdf. &nbsp;&nbsp;There are a few interesting tidbits in the data:
&nbsp;
1) The deficit for the first 7 months of fiscal 2010 is $802 billion.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s NET of $108 billion of TARP repayments. The $802 billion 7 month deficit is 40% of total federal spending and 67% of federal receipts.
&nbsp;
2)&nbsp; Personal income tax receipts were $503 billion.&nbsp; That means that if personal income tax receipts were to somehow double, we&rsquo;d still be looking at a $299 billion deficit for the last 7 months, which annualizes to $512 billion.&nbsp; Call me crazy, but somehow I suspect that tax increases alone aren&rsquo;t likely to solve the problem!
&nbsp;
3) Medicare and the federal portion of Medicaid spending (i.e. ignoring the states&rsquo; collective share of the Medicaid burden) each rose over 10% year over year.&nbsp; Combined, the two now exceed Social Security spending for the first time ever.
&nbsp;
4) Even with short term interest rates near zero, interest on the federal debt rose 23% year over year and now equals 10% of revenue.&nbsp; Given that 55% of federal debt carries a maturity of 3 years or less, once rates begin to increase, this number is going to explode.
&nbsp;
Greece, here we come! 

&nbsp;
Look especially at point 4.&nbsp; We all know that entitlement spending is unsustainable with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars.&nbsp; What keeps the system from imploding today, though, is the assumption of future revenues in the form of either increased&nbsp;taxes or cheap borrowing.&nbsp; Well, borrowing doesn't get any cheaper than it is today, which means interest rates will eventually go up.&nbsp; As that 55% of the federal debt that comes due over the next three years is rolled over (it won't be paid off with trillion dollar annual deficits into the forseeable future),&nbsp;it'll be refinanced&nbsp;at higher and higher interest rates.&nbsp; That means the portion of government spending going to servicing the debt will increase dramatically, which means either higher taxes or other spending cuts.
Guess which one we're for.]]></description><pubDate>May 13, 2010, 7:14 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=67</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>More Government Encroachment</title><description><![CDATA[I see by an article in Missoulian that our two senators are crowing about converting 48 private sector contracting jobs to government civil service jobs at Malmstrom AFB.&nbsp;
Oh joy.&nbsp; We're killing off businesses and taking private sector workers and converting them to government employees, who according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics on average pull in about one-third higher salaries and receive about 70% more in benefits than their private sector counterparts - and that's after controlling for things like education, skills and demographics.&nbsp;
And since public sector employees are about three times less likely to quit or lose their jobs than those of us in the private, productive sector, we can count on paying these inflated prices and gold plated benefits for the rest of their (and our) lives.
Good job senators.&nbsp; Even in these tough economic times you've found a way to make more people dependent on government, punish business, and move more money out of taxpayer wallets and into those of your cronies.]]></description><pubDate>May 12, 2010, 9:17 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=66</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Take Your Pick on Broadband - But We Can't Have Both</title><description><![CDATA[Ed. Note...Paul Gessing is president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a free market think tank in New Mexico similar to the Montana Policy Institute.&nbsp; He wrote this piece in response to the FCC's plans to enter the broadband market. 
MPI isn't working this issue but it certainly has application to our rural state.&nbsp; He makes some great points on this latest government intrusion into the marketplace that I thought were worth sharing.&nbsp; The original appeared in the Las Cruses Sun-News...Carl
&nbsp;
Take Your Pick, But We Can't Have Both
This all sounds exciting doesn't it? We're all for increasing broadband usage and speed at no additional cost, right? I know I sure am!
&nbsp;
But, it's important to point out that Chairman Julius Genachowski is pushing hard for another Big Plan at the FCC - regulating the Internet under so-called &quot;Network Neutrality&quot; rules - which runs diametrically opposed to the stated goals of his National Broadband Plan.
&nbsp;
Regulating broadband providers - telling them what they can and can't do with their networks, and who they can and can't charge for which services - will mean less investment in broadband. Currently, private-sector investment in broadband runs at about $60 billion a year, even in a down economy. Those massive investments, if the government simply leaves them alone, will lead to just the sorts of upward and outward success for the Internet Genachowski envisions in his National Broadband Plan.
&nbsp;
If, however, Genachowski starts regulating broadband providers as if they were &quot;common carriers&quot; (think pre-Internet phone companies) then good luck finding new broadband investment dollars.
&nbsp;
Right now, wireline broadband is available to 95 percent of the American population, and when you add 3G wireless, that number goes to 98 percent. Not everyone subscribes to those services, but it's available. For those in remote areas, Internet speeds of one megabyte per second (20 times faster than dialup, but a third the speed of typical landline broadband) are available through satellite providers who charge about $70 a month.
&nbsp;
This covers just about everyone in the country, and all of it happened without any Big Plan from the federal government. It happened because investors were willing to risk hundreds of billions of dollars into capitol-intensive networks in the hope they could recoup those investments by meeting the growing customer demand for broadband.
&nbsp;
Compared to this rather stunning feat by broadband providers, do Congress and the Obama administration really think they know best how to invest resources and gauge real customer demand?
&nbsp;
Genachowski is a longtime friend and former Harvard Law classmate of President Obama. He was a key Obama campaigner and did much to bring Internet search giant Google (which has sought Network neutrality regulations to ensure profits of its own) into the Obama camp. Whether it is the urge to reward Google and the far-left &quot;netroots&quot; citizens for their campaign support, or a genuine belief in the benevolence and capabilities of government, Obama and Genachowski appear firmly committed to expanding the size and scope of government's reach into the Internet and the media.
&nbsp;
Whatever you think of such strong faith in government, we must all understand that there remain hard tradeoffs between the urge to impose onerous regulations on private broadband providers while demanding those same broadband providers innovate, develop, and expand their services. We cannot expect companies locked in regulatory prisons to be free-market pioneers.
&nbsp;
The stubborn fact is that Genachowski's campaign to impose Network Neutrality regulations on the Internet flies directly in the face of his National Broadband Plan's campaign to expand and improve the Internet. He can take his pick, but he can't have both.
&nbsp;
Eventually, President Obama and his FCC chairman must confront what the growing protest movement in America is trying to tell them: We cannot tax, borrow, and regulate our way to better health care, better cars, better housing, or in the case at hand, to a better Internet.
&nbsp;
Paul Gessing is the president of New Mexico's Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.]]></description><pubDate>March 29, 2010, 1:39 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=65</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<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>
</channel>
</rss>