Over at 4&20, jhwygirl has an interesting, if somewhat snarky, comparison of the energy proposals forwarded by Democrat Senator Max Baucus and Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg. It’s a bold move for a Drill-Nothing Democrat to throw stones at a Republican about energy considering the current energy situation has 3 out of 4 Americans siding with the Republican side (sadly, one of the only issues that this is the case).
So let’s dance.
Despite his cheerleaders on the lefty blogs, and in the newspapers, the fact Baucus failed to override the 10.6% cut in physician reimbursements is an astonishing display of inept leadership.
I will say a couple things about what Jay posted over at LitW; first, President Bush did not propose these cuts (more on that later). Next, I really do not see an issue that is going to break down on party and ideological lines more than health care in the next couple years - so lets give some credit to the fact that a wide majority of House Republicans supported the measure along with the House Democrats.
That last point makes it all the more astounding that Max Baucus, with all his power, could not sway one more vote. Worse still, you could have seen this train wreck coming since last December at least.
A recent Treasury Report advises that the new and improved Internal Revenue Service could save a lot of money by streamlining documents and - gasp! - sending out less mail. Never missing an opportunity to see his name in the papers, Senator Baucus said the following:
“This is more than a matter of trimming government waste,” Baucus said. “Deficits in the publishing and postage budget at the IRS must be made up somewhere, and that can mean fewer resources to address other important objectives.”
Okay, that’s all fine and great, but remember when Big Sky Cairn uncovered the unnecessary millions spent on the stimulus package that came out of Baucus’ committee?
Here’s how much - in administrative dollars only - it cost Baucus to give you a rebate instead of a credit/cut.
Cost of mailing the rebate notice: $41,800,000.
Cost of mailing the rebate check: $42,000,000 (conservatively)
Estimated total expense to the taxpayer: $84,000,000.Beyond this, there’s a cost to the economy from the lag between when people pay their tax and when they get their rebate. Taxpayers must front the cash to Uncle Sam for the time between when they pay their taxes and receive the rebate check. In other words, the tax rebate is taking money out of the economy for 30-90 days at the exact time that we need it most.
It would have made more sense fiscally and economically to provide taxpayers with $600 tax credit which would 1) credit any outstanding balance owed to the IRS and/or 2) get added to an existing refund? For the taxpayer, this would have accomplished the same thing as sending the rebates separately except it would have saved over $80,000,000 in administrative fees and infused the money into the economy without first having pulled it out.
I guess it’s a lot easier to send out a press release demanding some fiscal accountability than to actually pass the laws that make that accountability possible. In this case, Baucus takes a political victory lap at the taxpayers’ expense, and then criticizes the pit crew for the extra gas it used to take that lap. Classic.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
While the Drill-Nothing Democrats celebrate the increased use of public transit “across Montana” (well, at least in the cities that have public transit - if you live in rural Montana where you have to drive further anyway, you’re out of luck), gas prices in Montana hit an ugly milestone on Friday when the average cost of a gallon of gasoline hit $4. While all those working class Montanans are feeling the pain, our elected Drill-Nothing Democrats in the Senate, Tester and Baucus, are actually voting to increase the taxes on energy while the “Energy Governor” continues to attack his opponent for actually having some personal experience in the Energy Industry. Meanwhile, wannabe representative Driscoll, the Democrat’s nominee to challenge Rehberg wants to create an electric train system for everyone to ride.
So while Democrats square dance between the environmentalists whose money got them elected and the working class they claimed to defend, Republican Denny Rehberg actually makes some sense.
Drill, drill, drill!
I am beginning to think Lamnidae is not even trying to be consistent anymore.
After all the hot air about Erik Iverson, they go ahead and sing the praises of Jim Messina;
It should be interesting to see what happens in Montana Democratic politics with would seem to be a bit of a power vacuum as a result. I get the impression that most major political decisions–at least those that relate to campaigns–get vetted through Mr. Messina.
Where to begin? Hell, I think I am just going to let the hypocrisy stand. Or maybe I should try harder to understand a world where it is bad if a Republican CoS handles political issues, but good, or at least non-controversial that a Democrat CoS does the same thing, only you know in smoke-filled backrooms.
I have to respectfully disagree with Montana Headlines. Bob Kelleher is not better than Max Baucus. He’s worse. Much worse. He’s not a Republican, but worse, he’s not conservative. He’s liberal as hell.
So I was a little relieved when I read this over at Billings Blog. Maybe a write-in candidacy for Lange? It’s an uphill battle, sure, but that’s nothing new. Republicans were never supposed to win this thing. And maybe a conservative running independent of damaged Republican Party wouldn’t actually be a bad thing. A black-horse candidate could blind-side Baucus and by the time he knew what was going on, it would be too late for the national muscle to step in.
Readers of this blog know that I think Max is much more vulnerable than you’d think if you just read Montana press. He’s the textbook definition of “gone Washington” right up to the fact that he doesn’t even own a house in Montana! He’s unpopular with his base and a thorn in his party’s liberal tendancies nationally.
Here’s the question: If Max Baucus didn’t have $10 million in out-of-state money would anyone still think he was untouchable?
Montana’s an unpredictable state when it comes to politics, so when it comes to money and votes, it would be a mistake to write-off an write-in victory for Lange.
Republicans nominate Kelleher to challenge Baucus. Democrats nominate Driscoll to challenge Rehberg. Montana lives up to its reputation as a political black box, and many - myself included - wake up this morning wondering what just happened. So what happened?
Our friend Montana Headlines theorizes that it’s name recognition in a crowded field that pushed these candidates over the top. Jay Stevens sees protest votes. Both, I think, have a point and can explain Kelleher’s win pretty well. I want to take their thoughts and integrate them into a larger scenario. Here’s what I think happened yesterday.
I think we saw the consequence of split ticket voting on strict party line ballots.
First, Montana voters are notoriously independent, and split-ticket voting (voting simultaneously for candidates from multiple parties) is quite prevalent. It’s why, for example, Republican Conrad Burns lost on the same ticket that Republican Denny Rehberg won on in 2006. As a state, we famously buck national trends and party distinctions.
Second, the highest billed ticket in this primary was the Presidential contest between Obama and Clinton. Given the unpopularity of President Bush and the skepticism many Montana Republicans feel toward McCain, there is a sense of discouraged inevitability among many Republicans that the winner of the Democratic Primary will be the next President. Since the Republican ticket was already set, I think many Montanans who lean Republican may have voted on the Democrat ticket in order to voice their opinion on this important question. Some probably voted for Hillary to continue the in-fighting on the left (Operation Chaos). Some probably voted for Obama because they really like him and will vote for him in the General Election. Most, I’m guessing, voted for Obama because he’s a much better option in their minds than Clinton and they don’t want to be stuck with another Clinton Administration. It was the importance of this race, and the fact that there weren’t any other hotly contested primaries among Republicans that made voting on the Democrat Ticket attractive.
Third, the Republicans who voted for the Democrat Presidential Candidate were locked into voting Democrat for the remainder of the ballot. Congressman Rehberg is still popular in Montana, especially among Republicans who may have selected what they considered to be the weaker of the two significant candidates in order to help ensure his seat was unthreatened.
Fourth, the Republican exodus to the Democrat ballot (again, not for insidious Operation Chaos reasons) left the Republican ticket vulnerable to greater influence from a smaller number of people with an axe to grind (see Jay Stevens’ analysis). Coupled with a crowded field in which no candidate was able to get in front of the pack (see Montana Headlines’ take above) an overall minority of voters (36%) was able to nominate the winning candidate as the majority of voters (64%) split their votes among the remaining candidates.
And pre-emptively, no, I don’t have any hard proof. Like most Montanans I know, I’m still scratching my head. This is my guess.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve heard of Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan clearinghouse for political candidates’ views and positions on issues. This nationally recognized and appreciated source is based right here in Philipsburg, Montana.
According to a 2007 Pew Research Institute Study (cited in Congressman Rehberg’s Op-Ed at MTPolitics), more and more people are using the internet to research where candidates stand on the issues that are important to them. Viewing issue statements on official or political websites run by the candidates is useful to a certain extent, acknowledging that no intelligent candidate is going to include controversial positions and that they’ll always shade things to favor their views. That’s where a non-partisan clearinghouse of issues like Project Vote Smart plays a unique and important role in our democracy. They ask all candidates the same questions and standardize their responses for fair comparisons on the issues that matter. It’s a monumental undertaking:
Picture this: thousands of citizens (conservative and liberal alike) working together, spending endless hours researching the backgrounds and records of thousands of political candidates and elected officials to discover their voting records, campaign contributions, public statements, biographical data (including their work history) and evaluations of them generated by over 100 competing special interest groups. Every election these volunteers test each candidate’s willingness to provide citizens with their positions on the issues they will most likely face if elected through the Political Courage Test. (emphasis added)
Congressman Denny Rehberg and Gubernatorial Candidate Roy Brown - both Republicans - completed the Political Courage Test. They answered the survey and put their views out there in the public sphere. They have nothing to hide.
Max Baucus, Brian Schweitzer and Jim Hunt - the big ticket Democrats in 2008 - chose to ignore the survey. Montana Democrats have claimed over and over again that this election should be about issues. They have have made a habit of misrepresenting Republican views these issues. So why are they so afraid of telling Montanans where they stand on those issues that they claim are so vital? This is especially insulting since Project Vote Smart is based in Montana so the Political Courage Test is literally coming from the constituents these candidates hope to represent.
Why does it matter? Project Vote Smart has this to say:
At a time when Americans are increasingly frustrated with the attack advertising and empty rhetoric of many campaigns, the need for this relevant information has never been greater. The public integrity of candidates and the quality of their campaigns can be viewed, in part, as a measurement of their willingness to provide their prospective employers (voters) with this information during a campaign, the point when voters need the most help and when the candidates are asking for their vote.
Join me in urging Senator Baucus, Governor Schweitzer and Seventh String Hunt to answer the questions posed to them by Montanans about where they stand on the issues that matter. There’s just no excuse for not putting their views out there for public discussion.
Republican Denny Rehberg sleeps on his couch, holds campaign events at bars with animal heads on the wall and raises his money in Montana.
Democrat Max Baucus lives in Georgetown, spends thousands of dollars at swank DC restaurants, drives a new BMW and raises his money everywhere but Montana.
Democrat Jim Hunt… well he wants to live in Washington, DC and doesn’t really raise much money from anywhere.
Why isn’t the media talking about where the millions of dollars that Baucus is going to dump into Montana races comes from? Since that Missoulian article (linked above), we haven’t heard a thing about where Baucus is raising his money. Since it’s going to have a pretty big impact on the political face of Montana, I think it’s a story worth telling.
