<?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>Veterans Day - 2011</title><description><![CDATA[
	&nbsp;

	Veterans Day &ndash; 2011

	11-11-11

	Message from 

	MG Paul E. Vallely. US Army Ret

	On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 an armistice between Germany and the Allied nations came into effect. On November 11, 1919, Armistice Day was commemorated for the first time. In 1919, President Wilson proclaimed the day should be &quot;filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country&rsquo;s service and with gratitude for the victory&quot;. There were plans for parades, public meetings and a brief suspension of business activities at 11am.

	We pause this day in America to remember our fallen heroes, the men and women who answered the call of freedom and paid the ultimate sacrifice.&nbsp; Let us remember and thank them for the nights they slept freezing in a tent or sweating in the desert, for the lonely days they spent fighting boredom and missing loved ones, for the hours they spent sick in pain from battle and without someone holding their hand other than their fellow soldiers, for the moments of sheer fright in the heat of battle, for the wounds suffered fighting evil, for the endless days in hospitals undergoing painful surgeries, for the precious occasions&nbsp; missed at home with family and friends. 

	For all of these sacrifices, we need to thank them on behalf of millions of Americans who are so grateful. We truly appreciate their dedication to duty.&nbsp; A special thank you to all families and friends, to the parents who raised them, stood by them and made them honorable men and woman.&nbsp; We thank the wives, husbands, and loved ones who stood by them and supported them with their love.

	May their legacy be honored for generations to come, may the tears shed over their coffins fertilize the fields of patriotism in our nation. The new generations to come must be built on strength, duty, honor and country, willing and able to follow in their Warrior footsteps when duty calls to defend America. May their blood not have been shed in vain.&nbsp; May we prove worthy of their sacrifice.
	You who have served and are serving as our brave ones, our heroes, are our national treasures. You are the pride of our nation, our strength and our foundation. Thanks to you, millions have been freed around the world. Those who criticize our country, burn our precious flag, and speak ill of you, are able to do so because their freedom is built upon your blood and your sacrifice.
	Our son speaks from his resting place below our feet in Bigfork.. He speaks to me each day from his hallowed space with beautiful skies and mountains majestic white with snow. God bless his soul and the others buried here and I thank him for his wonderful contribution to our life. He lives forever in our hearts. I fear no evil when I walk with Warriors. We walk in the valley of death but we fear no evil. We are the Masters of our Destiny and the Captain of our souls. You are the wind beneath my wings. I fly with you forever in eternity.

	WE salute you one and all.&nbsp; WE bow before you in respect and humility.

	Today, our Nation comes together to honor our veterans and commemorate the legacy of profound service and sacrifice they have upheld in pursuit of a more perfect Union. Through their steadfast defense of America&rsquo;s ideals, our service members have ensured our country still stands strong, our founding principles still shine, and nations around the world know the blessings of freedom. As we offer our sincere appreciation and respect to our veterans, to their families, to those who are still in harm&rsquo;s way, and to those we have laid to rest, let us rededicate ourselves to serving them as well as they have served the United States of America.

	Our men and women in uniform are bearers of a proud military tradition that has been dutifully passed forward&mdash;from generation to generation&mdash;for more than two centuries. In times of war and peace alike, our veterans have served with courage and distinction in the face of tremendous adversity, demonstrating an unfaltering commitment to America and our people. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the country they loved. The selflessness of our service members is unmatched, and they remind us that there are few things more fundamentally American than doing our utmost to make a difference in the lives of others.

	Just as our veterans stood watch on freedom&rsquo;s frontier, so have they safeguarded the pros&shy;perity of our Nation in our neighborhoods, our businesses, and our homes. It is our moral obligation to ensure they receive our support for as long as they live as proud veterans of the United States Armed Forces. On Veterans Day, we pay tribute to our veterans, to the fallen, and to their families. To honor their contributions to our Nation, let us strive with renewed determination to keep the promises we have made to all who have answered our country&rsquo;s call. As we fulfill our obligations to them, we keep faith with the patriots who have risked their lives to preserve our Union, and with the ideals of service and sacrifice upon which our Republic was founded.

	On this day in 2011, we formally announce here in the Flathead Valley of Montana in the United States of America, a formal announcement to Restore the Constitutional Republic of the United States and a Declaration by all Veterans and Patriots to restore and stand by our beloved Constitution and renew our oath.

	We CALL upon every member of federal, state and local government, legislative, judicial, law enforcement and military, who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitutional&nbsp;Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic, to act upon those oaths for the stated purpose of restoring the Constitutional Republic.

	We CALL upon ALL veterans and veteran organizations in America, who still believe in their oath to protect and defend, to unite with us at once - in this Declaration to Restore the&nbsp;Constitutional Republic.

	We CALL for ALL citizens who still desire freedom and liberty, to stand with us and carry our demands to right the wrongs against our nation in the preservation of freedom, liberty, justice and the rule of law.

	&ldquo;We are Facing a Battle That Will Decide our Fate as a Nation!&rdquo;

	God Bless all of you and God Bless our Nation.

	&nbsp;

	Paul E. Vallely MG, US Army (Ret)

	CEO &ndash; NEMO Arms Inc ( New Evolution Military Ordnance); pvallely@nemoarms.com

	Chairman &ndash; Stand Up America; E-Mail: standupamericausa1@gmail.com;; www.standupamericaus.org; www.soldiersmemorialfund.org
]]></description><pubDate>November 10, 2011, 9:58 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=84</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Bridging the Conservative Divide - Part 2</title><description><![CDATA[
	In Part One I argued that the &nbsp;Center Left and progressive Left are much better at playing together than those of us on the political Right. &nbsp;Since they already agree on the solution, there&#39;s little point in arguing about the problem. &nbsp;And their solution that is perpetually in search of a problem - any problem - is ever and always more government, more spending, more control.

	On the Right, meanwhile, we see an apparent - I say apparent because I think it&#39;s more style than substance - split between the centrists who have traditionally dominated the establishment conservative base and the new grassroots conservatives that tend to lean more constitutional and libertarian. &nbsp;And who also feel a much greater sense of urgency in changing our current course.

	What is indisputable, though, given that we have a president in Washington and slateful of elected officials in Helena who are of the Party of the Left, is that this center/right state and country are not translating conservative philosophies and preferences into political power. &nbsp;

	That has to change.

	And change it will if we can concentrate on what unites the Right and replace the straw man arguments constantly erected by the Left with intuitive and easily stated concepts for making this a better place by following the recipe left to us in our founding documents.

	Here are a few ideas.&nbsp;

	First, polls show broad agreement around the concept that government is too big, too expensive, and unsustainable at current levels. &nbsp;If something can&#39;t go on forever it probably won&#39;t, as an economist once said, and we&#39;re at a tipping point between continuing down the current path leading towards becoming a European-style social democracy, or returning to the principles of freedom, capitalism, and limited government that have made us unique in history.

	There is also broad agreement that the system of special interest spoils, crony capitalism, and identity politics has broken the bank and is morally corrupt. &nbsp;The more government can pick winners and losers the less incentive people have to achieve and the less opportunity there is to climb the ladder of success. &nbsp;That&#39;s unfair and it makes everyone except the connected few worse off than they otherwise would be. &nbsp;

	The Left&#39;s focus on equality of outcomes, whether it be incomes or feelings, also provides an opportunity to unite behind some basic conservative principles. &nbsp;

	They are focusing on the split between the richest and poorest and calling for closing that gap through redistribution or a playing field that would be leveled through government intervention, i.e. holding some people back and giving others a boost. &nbsp;

	But there is no such thing as a level playing field and there never will be. &nbsp;People are born with different interests, aptitudes, talents, luck, and a million other attributes that guarantee they will not approach life in the same way, work at the same levels, or aim for and achieve the same goals. &nbsp;The ability to set your own goals and decide how much effort to put into achieving them is essential to freedom. &nbsp;

	And there will always be a split in incomes. &nbsp;The Politburo lived better than the average Russian, just as a Wall Street executive lives better than the average American. &nbsp;Tin pot dictators around the world live better than their subjects. &nbsp;

	The important thing isn&#39;t whether there is a split in incomes - that will always be the case under any system - but whether there are opportunities to rise. &nbsp;And nothing provides more opportunity to rise than a free enterprise system where people are equal under the law - the rules apply to everyone equally - but where what they get out of it depends on what they put into it. &nbsp;

	So we shouldn&#39;t let the Left get away with the simplistic and materialistic argument that money buys happiness and equal amounts of money make everyone equally happy.

	Instead we should be focusing on the fairness of a system that rewards work and risk. &nbsp;If some people work more they get more. &nbsp;That&#39;s fair. &nbsp;If you want to work less and live a simpler life that&#39;s fine, too. &nbsp;It&#39;s your business to decide how much you want to put into and how much you want to get out of your labor and whatever other assets you have, not the government&#39;s.

	And we should be pointing out that prosperity is good for everyone. &nbsp;Only rich societies can afford things like social safety nets, environmental stewardship, and host of other things that civil societies provide. &nbsp;These things aren&#39;t made possible by equal incomes; they&#39;re made possible by increased incomes that a free enterprise system makes possible.

	And a free enterprise system - as opposed to the crony capitalism we&#39;re seeing more of today - has a government that protects rights rather than creating them and allows people to reap the rewards of their earned success. &nbsp;That means limiting its role in our lives, it&#39;s reach into our pockets, and acting as a protector of rights rather than a granter of goodies.

	These are points that have broad appeal, don&#39;t take an economics degree to understand, and can be easily passed on from one person to another. &nbsp;

	Rather than concentrating on the few issues that divide the Right, we should be focusing on the ideas and principles that most Americans embrace as our unique heritage and advantage. &nbsp;Hopefully we&#39;ll learn in time.
]]></description><pubDate>November 1, 2011, 5:26 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=83</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Bridging the Conservative Divide - Part 1</title><description><![CDATA[
	&nbsp;

	Why have we moved so far to the left if we&rsquo;re a center/right nation?

	And we are a center/right nation.&nbsp; Yes, progressive websites regularly trot out polls asking loaded questions like whether people would rather see universal healthcare or babies dying on the street and old people eating cat food; or old people on streets and cats eating baby food.&nbsp; They&rsquo;re all pretty much the same and the results are as false as the choices they offer. &nbsp;

	Meanwhile in the real world, survey after survey shows that self-identified conservatives outnumber those who call themselves liberals by double digit margins. &nbsp;

	Not surprisingly, these same surveys show majorities of those in the mercurial middle who place a premium on amicability over expression, and whose opinions more often swing on specific issues than political philosophies fill out a centrist column that is also moving to the right. &nbsp; &nbsp;

	And just for the mandatory disclaimer to head off troll comments, the racists, mask wearing Marxists, and other fringe elements who self-identify with each side pretty much only matter to themselves so we&rsquo;ll leave them out of our descriptions of Left and Right.&nbsp; They&rsquo;re mostly narcissistic loud mouths and don&rsquo;t belong in a serious discussion about serious people, even misguided ones.

	So in a mostly conservative state that&rsquo;s in a mostly conservative nation, why do we have a president and entire slate of state constitutional officers in Helena who come from the party of the Left?&nbsp; Obviously conservative beliefs don&rsquo;t always translate into conservative votes.&nbsp;

	The reason for that, I think, is that the Center/Right and, for lack of a better term, libertarian Right tend to either scare or disgust&nbsp; one another; while the Center/Left and, again for lack of a better term, progressive Left are much more effective at coalescing around central themes and voting as a bloc.

	The anti-war Left, for example, was largely co-opted and nose-ringed by the Center/Left Democrats when their earliest and most vocal advocate Howard Dean was made chairman of their Party. You don&rsquo;t &ndash; and won&rsquo;t &ndash; see a Ron Paul elected by Republican insiders as that Party&rsquo;s chair anytime soon.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s not that they wouldn&rsquo;t love to co-opt Paul&rsquo;s more libertarian leaning followers.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s that they think those guys are nuts who have no interest in being co-opted at any rate.&nbsp;

	Those leaning more libertarian, meanwhile, think institutional Republicans are more interested in power than principle and care more about place settings than problem solving.&nbsp; Each is looking at the other through a soda straw that shows a piece of the picture but not enough to make out its true colors.

	One result of this narrow view of each other is that the institutional Right doesn&rsquo;t see much difference between the libertarian Right and the progressive Left on a lot of issues.&nbsp; The political spectrum actually circles around and meets on several key issues near and dear to conservatives, at least in their respective definitions of the problems.&nbsp; The libertarian Right and progressive Left have remarkably similar opinions on overseas wars, drug policy and civil liberties: think Iraq, medical marijuana, and the Patriot Act.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s scary to traditional conservatives.

	But what&rsquo;s often lost is that where the libertarian Right and progressive Left sometimes agree on narrow policy outcomes with these issues, they&rsquo;re completely at opposites on what the real problem is and how to fix it.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s why it&rsquo;s becoming increasingly clear (even to those who wish it were true) that the Occupy (fill in the location) and Tea Party movements are not chips off the same block.&nbsp; One is a kid rolling on the floor pounding its fists while the other is demanding an adult conversation.

	The Left, meanwhile, can coalesce around seemingly disparate issues because they have a set of constant, predictable solutions in search of whatever problem they can exploit, or even fabricate.&nbsp; They want more government, more spending, and more control.&nbsp; Global warming, global cooling, overpopulation, poverty, wealth inequality, and ironically government corruption &ndash; all have identical solutions: more government, more spending, more control.&nbsp; They want to put government bandaids on top of government bandaids covering wounds that no longer exists, if they ever did.

	Meanwhile, the libertarian Right sees the root of all evils as statism: too much government doing too many things and not leaving people to exercise their liberties, while centrist Republicans focus more on the practical impacts of unsustainable spending and economy stifling regulations.&nbsp; And that&rsquo;s where the opportunity to bridge the conservative divide lies.

	Those who lean right of center &ndash; either slightly or over on their ears &ndash; do share broadly agreed upon themes.&nbsp; You can reel in the most compassionate conservative or the most icy-veined libertarian by talking about things like free market economics, capitalism, and the founding principles of freedom, responsibility, and limited government.&nbsp; The trick is in taking those broad themes and distilling them into actionable policy options and building messages that bridge the divide between the practical and the principled.

	But even that&rsquo;s not enough.&nbsp; To reach that broad center that leans Right but is put off by the perceived lack of compassion in policies that call for people to take responsibility for their actions, or that is scared by the constitutional arguments for and conspiratorial sounding threats demanding devolved federal power, we have to find common ground on where we&rsquo;ve gone wrong and how we get back to the basics of founding principles like federalism, limited government, and a true market economy.

	And finally, we need simple, intuitive, and truthful arguments against the traditional statist Left&rsquo;s arguments for more spending, more government, and more control.&nbsp;

	Check this space for Part 2 that will offer suggestions for bridging the divide and countering the big government arguments with common sense ideas.
]]></description><pubDate>October 25, 2011, 5:35 pm</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=82</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Business needs to pick a side-free enterprise or free loading</title><description><![CDATA[
	You&#39;re going to hear a lot more from us on this topic, but it&#39;s time for business and industry to come out and say what they think about the government&#39;s impact on their investment, hiring, and marketing decisions; and what they think about government picking winners and losers.

	The first industry that does this will be embraced with open arms by the same majority of Americans who have picked a side and sent politicians to Washington and Helena with mandates to bring this country and state back to the basics that made them both great: free people, free enterprise, and limited government.

	Ford may have made the decision and is picking a side with this ad. (video frame may not display in some browsers)

	&nbsp;

	

	&nbsp;

	The GM/Chrysler bailouts are going to cost taxpayers around $16 billion. &nbsp;So-called &quot;stimulus&quot; projects wasted billions more. &nbsp;&quot;Green job&quot; subsidies are a huge black hole of political favoritism and picking winners and losers, as we&#39;re already seeing with the Solyndra debacle (or crime). &nbsp;The National Labor Relations Board wants to tell Boeing where it can and cannot build manufacturing facilities. &nbsp;I could go on and on.

	The point is that industries and businesses that stand up and say they&#39;ll give up special treatment in return for government stopping overregulation and picking winners and losers will find a lot of allies. &nbsp;And those who don&#39;t will find their customers going elsewhere.
]]></description><pubDate>September 16, 2011, 10:09 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=81</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>What the Election Told Us - It's Not All Good</title><description><![CDATA[At the risk of deflating the big victory balloon, I'm going to pull out my curmudgeon hat this morning.&nbsp; Ok, maybe it's good to revel a little in the solid repudiation of European-style welfare-state policies.&nbsp;
Yay!&nbsp;
That's enough.&nbsp; Now we have to get beyond repudiation (as satisfying as it is) and fix the mess that's been left behind.&nbsp; That's going to take a longer term approach that includes ideas and not just grievances.&nbsp; And those ideas have to reflect the underlying principles that give substance to most Montanan's desire to govern themselves in their everyday lives and return government to its role as a protector rather than a granter of rights.
Politics is about power, and yesterday's results determined where the power will be for at least the next couple of years.&nbsp; But power without principle is at best ineffective and at worst dangerous.&nbsp; We need to make sure that those in power reflect the principles of those who put them there.&nbsp;
Power is also fleeting, while principles and the ideas they foster are lasting.&nbsp; Some of the election results seem to indicate that many Montanans are investing more in people who they think will fix their problems than in ideas that will eliminate the sources of those problems.&nbsp; Overspending, over regulation, shifting everyday decisions from people to bureaucracies, pandering to special interests or the policy fad of the day; these are all things that shift the power of people to govern themselves to someone or something else.&nbsp; They take away responsibility for our own actions, and by extension the ability and freedom to decide how to live our lives.&nbsp;
I don't think most Montanans get that relationship between freedom and responsibility yet, and the shift we saw yesterday may not last.&nbsp;We need to get that word out.&nbsp; We need to inform and impress upon our fellow citizens the importance of ideas over people.&nbsp; We need to remember that politicians don't typically lead the culture, they follow it.&nbsp;
Our political system doesn't reward innovation or risk taking.&nbsp; In fact it punishes those who really want to stand out and co-opts those with a weak understanding or just plain lack of underlying principles.
For those reasons and more, our political leaders generally stick their finger up into the wind to see which way it's blowing before determining their course.
For generations the movement has all been away from individual freedom and responsibility and towards ever larger, more powerful, and overweening government.&nbsp; It's time to shift the wind and remember what made our country&nbsp;the shining city on the hill, and our state its crown jewel.
We need to be the wind.&nbsp; We need to be strong.&nbsp; We need to be constant.&nbsp; And we need to invest in the ideas that keep us true.&nbsp; Investing in people is necessary but can only have a short term effect.&nbsp; Investing in ideas moves the culture and changes the world.&nbsp;]]></description><pubDate>November 3, 2010, 11:07 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=80</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>MT Workers: Your labor has no value to us</title><description><![CDATA[According to a report by our illustrious and always accurate Montana Watchdog sister publication, Montana's minimum wage is set to go up ten cents to $7.35 an hour&nbsp;in January 2011.&nbsp;What that means is that if you don't have $7.35/hour plus, say another 20% in taxes and benefits or so worth of productivity in you, then you're not worthy of being employed according to state law.
Working at a gas station, on a farm, convenience store, fast food restaurant (at least in Eastern Montana) and whatever you're doing doesn't add around $9.00 an hour to the value of whatever whatever you're doing?&nbsp; You don't deserve a job.&nbsp; Go on welfare.&nbsp; We'd rather support you than encourage you or let you build the skills for higher paying jobs.
Are you a student who just wants a part time gig for beer money or, heaven forbid, tuition if your Pell grant didn't come through?&nbsp; Tough luck.&nbsp; Go back to your dorm and study until you're smarter or the economy picks up.
Is there a machine or, better yet, an Asian who can do your job for less than $7.35 an hour plus benefits and taxes?&nbsp; We won't let you waste your valuable time being productive, achieving anything, or just filling your time not robbing banks.&nbsp; We'd much rather you get unemployment and move back into the folks' basement.&nbsp;
This is the inanity of a minimum wage.&nbsp; Low hourly-rate jobs are traditionally filled by the unskilled or the temporary labor force, or more likely the temporarily unskilled.&nbsp; Very few people stay at minimum wage more than a year as their work skills develop and they become worth more to their employers.&nbsp; But in the meantime, untold numbers of people who want a second or part time or entry level job are denied the opportunity as employers are forced to mechanize, outsource, or just forego growth because the minimum labor cost is higher than the marginal revenue of hiring someone.&nbsp; And we're doing this during the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression?
Labor is subject to basic economic principles just like anything else.&nbsp; If the price goes up, less of it will be bought.&nbsp; With unemployment at historic levels and showing no signs of relief, why in the world would we tell people their labor is not worthy of us just to prop up the wage levels of a lucky few who get their foot in the door?]]></description><pubDate>October 7, 2010, 9:40 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=79</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Business is the Dinner...Finally They Get It</title><description><![CDATA[I can't remember if it originally came from an Aesop fable or a Twilight Zone episode, but pretty much everyone has heard the old saw about someone being invited for dinner and finding out they were on the menu instead of the guest list.&nbsp; I think some in the business community are finally starting to realize that pretty much anytime they're invited to the table by the government they're more likely to be the entree than the honoree.
The Montana Petroleum Association seems to get it, though.&nbsp; They're doing things to raise awareness of the impacts of regulation and land use restrictions on our economy and on our way of life.&nbsp; They've got an annual essay contest for high school kids and this year the question is:

How does a policy restricting and eliminating grazing, farming, oil and gas and timber harvests on federal lands impact the adjoining land owners, communities, schools, tax base and jobs?

How's that for subtle?&nbsp; This isn't big Pharma or AARP eagerly backing health care &quot;reform&quot; once they got their guaranteed market carve outs, or banks keeping mum on financial reform hoping not to offend their new regulatory overlords.&nbsp; This sounds like the voice of an industry that realizes they're on the menu, and that&nbsp;they have less to lose by fighting back than by playing along to get along.
Good for the MPA.&nbsp; I hope they're successful in educating both young people and old people on the threats to freedom and prosperity&nbsp;that the current trend towards overweening government poses.&nbsp; And if you have a kid in school, have them write an essay.]]></description><pubDate>October 7, 2010, 8:20 am</pubDate><link>http://www.montanapolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=78</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<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>
</channel>
</rss>
