Big Sky Cairn

Senator Max Baucus is all over the news bragging up the stimulus package that he oversaw which includes tax rebates of between $300-600 for all taxpayers (double that for married couples). Rest assured, you’ll hear about this all year long whenever tax policy comes up. Ever wonder why we’re getting tax “rebates” instead of “cuts”?

This year, American taxpayers will file their taxes by April 15. They will determine how much they owe and send their owed taxes or receive their rebates. Then, between May and July, after this entire transaction has completed, Uncle Sam will send qualifying taxpayers (most of them) a letter telling them that they have a rebate coming. Then, a week later the Federal government will send them another letter - this time with the rebate check. Seem a bit redundant?

It is, and that redundancy is expensive. 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.

Baffled? Don’t be.

Remember this is an election year and the political cost of a tax credit/cut instead of a rebate would have been the inability for Max Baucus to remind you again and again how generous he is with your own money.

The political cost of a tax credit/cut would have been explaining why a tax cut that’s good for the economy this year isn’t also good for the economy next year and the year after that.

In a way, Max Baucus using your tax dollars to generate ammunition for his campaign.  I guess he was feeling bad that he wasn’t using your money for fancy dinners and posh hotel rooms.

They say rights fall like Dominoes - which is a really weak metaphor but I had to use it to justify that catchy headline!

The government is sending men with guns to your (Washington, DC) neighborhood. But don’t worry - it’s for your own good. They’re there (with their guns) to help eradicate (your) guns. I feel safer already.

Hat tip to Rabid Sanity for breaking this, and Missoulapolis for the additional commentary on a new program being implemented in Washington, DC among other places.

A tip for aspiring robbers, rapists and criminals: follow those “Safe Homes Initiative” squads around (discreetly of course). Keep a list of the addresses where the squads are welcomed and invited in. That night, you’ve got a perfect list of defenseless scores.

A tip for the veteran robbers, rapists and criminals: if you’ve got a dirty gun that you used in a crime sitting around the house, have the Squad come in and grant you immunity from arrest to find it and impound it. That way you won’t have to serve any time for crimes already committed. Better yet, find a house where the coppers are already searching and quickly hide the gun under the Welcome mat.

Would someone tell me why Max Baucus prefers living in Washington, DC to Montana, ’cause I don’t get it…

As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus seems to be positioning himself in a place to take credit should the economy improve.  If the economy is within his realm of influence, doesn’t that suggest that the downturn is also his fault?

There are so many reasons not to vote for someone as offensive as Max Baucus.

Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that there were One Million Reasons not to vote for Max. Even with that many reasons, Baucus would still have more than $8 in out-of-state money per reason to spend diverting attention away from those reasons.

Let me put that another way. Let’s say that every in-state dollar that Baucus has is a reason to vote for him and every out-of-state dollar that he has is a reason to vote against him. Well, come election day there would be 9 reasons not to vote for him for every 1 reason to support him.

Fortunately for Max, a lot of his most liberal supporters are willing to overlook years of “betrayal.” They make bold statements about not voting for him, but they always give themselves an exit strategy:

Because my experience of Max is leaving a sour taste in my mouth. Trust is waning. Perhaps before November, Max will get that back. But it’s gonna take some real serious promises, and I’m not feeling very giving right now.

The question is, will Max have enough money to buy back their votes? My bet is that he will.

Pete Talbot is pissed. Go read it. Especially the section titled “Max gets jobs for Montanans Virginians”…

The next candidate who says they’re for jobs for Montanans and then spends their money on out-of-state production companies, ad agencies, printers, pollsters, etc., will receive some special attention.

Pete shouldn’t be too surprised that Baucus isn’t spending his significant campaign war chest in Montana. Consider:

1) Baucus lives in DC, which is a lot closer to Virginia than it is to Montana. It’s probably a lot easier to cut a commercial locally.  Not only that, but spending that money in Virginia means that it will benefit the Virginia economy - which means the roads that Baucus drives on and the public services he enjoys will be much better.  Win-win!

2) After a trip to India, Max Baucus famously said that “outsourcing white-collar jobs to low-wage countries such as India has become a global fact of life — and that America must learn to live with it.” Geeze, Montana get over yourself and learn to live with it already.

3) It’s not like it’s our money anyway. Remember, 91% of that money comes from outside Montana like Virginia anyway. Baucus has some backs to scratch, if you know what I’m saying.

4) Still wondering how many of those campaign staffers are from Montana…

PS - Jack talked about this way back when, but it’s a lot more fun when the righteous anger comes from the left.

It seems odd that a law that has become as controversial as Real ID (at least in Montana) passed with such popular margins in Congress (100-0 in the Senate, 368-58 in the House). Why?

Our borders and immigration system, including law enforcement, ought to send a message of welcome, tolerance, and justice to members of immigrant communities in the United States and in their countries of origin. We should reach out to immigrant communities. Good immigration services are one way of doing so that is valuable in every way-including intelligence.

It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country. Today more than 9 million people are in the United States outside the legal immigration system. We must also be able to monitor and respond to entrances between our ports of entry, working with Canada and Mexico as much as possible.

There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.

All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities.

Recommendation: Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.

And this one too:

For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel presents great danger, because they must surface to pass through regulated channels, present themselves to border security officials, or attempt to circumvent inspection points.

In their travels, terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas, specific travel methods and routes, liaisons with corrupt government officials, human smuggling networks, supportive travel agencies, and immigration and identity fraud. These can sometimes be detected.

Before 9/11, no agency of the U.S. government systematically analyzed terrorists’ travel strategies. Had they done so, they could have discovered the ways in which the terrorist predecessors to al Qaeda had been systematically but detectably exploiting weaknesses in our border security since the early 1990s.

We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. Analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 to 15 hijackers and more effective use of information available in U.S. government databases could have identified up to 3 hijackers.32

Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.33

Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.

Recommendation: Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.

Remember that 9/11 Commission Report? Turns out that among the central recommendations of this report was something like Real ID. That’s where those excerpts are taken from.

Look, liberals love to set their standards way above federal minimums. Except, apparently, when it’s a matter of national security.

Rack this one up to media bias.  Yes, Rehberg voted for Real ID.  It’s all over the papers and in every news story about Baucus and Tester.  Usually the article also mentions that Renberg changed his position on the law after the state unanimously passed legislation refusing to comply.

So I find myself wondering why, in every article I’ve read about Baucus and Tester opposing Real ID, there is absolutely no mention of how Baucus voted.  It seems like in an article about their opposition to a law, it would be relevant to know how they originally voted when that law was made.  And I figure the reporters know it’s relevant because they mention Rehberg’s support for the law even when the story isn’t about Rehberg at all.  But Baucus’ press release probably didn’t have that information in it, and as busy as it gets, it was probably too much work to determine if he ever supported Real ID.  After all, its not like anyone would try to use this as a political issue.

Fear not dear readers; I did the 2 minutes of research on Google.  Turns out, that like 99 of his colleagues in the Senate, including the other Senator from Montana, Max Baucus voted for Real ID.  Doesn’t that seem newsworthy to you?

With all the prefab outrage at Congressman Denny Rehberg’s “Idaho Travel Package” critics are coming out of the woodwork to pile on attacks and name calling. You’ll never find a greater bed of intolerance than among the liberal left demanding tolerance.

My feeling on the issue is that one, the joke wasn’t that funny but maybe you had to be there and two, you have to dig pretty hard to find offense in it. The primary point of contention is the shirt “My Senator may not be gay, but my governor is Butch.” The thing is, I don’t know any gay people who are offended by this, but I do know plenty of bleeding hearts of are offended for them (since they’re too weak to know what’s best for them).

Look, if you want it bad enough, you can find offense in just about anything. To test that theory, let’s review a recent Top Ten List that Senator Max Baucus put together for Big J over at KRSQ. Max put some work into this one too, and was so proud of it that he posted it on his official site for some time (although I can’t seem to find it now). Without further ado:

10 Buy Britney Spears’ new CD, Blackout to replace Yanni on my iPod
9 Head out for an evening of cow tipping with my buddy Jon Tester
8 Check all Billings restaurants for illegal aliens
7 Get all hopped up on Red Bull and start a mosh pit at the Ozzy Osborne show
6 Shotgun a Mad Dog 20-20 and hit the Corn Maize with Brian Schweitzer
5 Put your tax dollars to work at Lucky Lil’s
4 See how long it takes to get bounced out of Club Carlin
3 Watch the Raiders get their butts kicked at Tiny’s
2 Show Barry Manilow who’s boss with my Karaoke performance at The Red Door
1 Ask Big J if he would be willing to be the official morning show of the United States Senate.

So let’s put together a list of groups or individuals who could - if so inclined - be offended by Baucus’ insensitivity. I’ve included contact information so the Offense Grass Roots Brigade can start to generate the outrage.

1) MADD Montana - Sure, alcohol is a part of Montana’s culture, but that’s probably why Montana consistently ranks near the bottom when it comes to alcohol related driving accidents and fatalities. These are real events with real consequences - real lives are ruined. Out of the ten items on Max’s list, five of them deal directly with consumption of alcohol or a drinking establishment. Shotgunning an MD 20-20 isn’t exactly responsible drinking, and as role-models go Britney Spears and Ozzy Osbourne aren’t exactly positive. You can begin the outrage avalanche by contacting MADD here.

2) Chris Crocker - just wants you to leave Britney Spears alone. Why does Max have to make her the butt of a joke? You can let Chris know about this outrage through his MySpace profile.

3) RIAA. Max clearly states that he intends to buy a CD for his iPod. As he undoubtedly knows, an iPod doesn’t play CDs so it will be necessary to rip that CD. Based on the laws the Max helped to write, ripping a CD for personal use is illegal. You can report Max’s public support for intellectual piracy here.

4) R-CALF - When it comes to ranchers who are already facing a dire economic situations, the last thing they need is for their state’s two United States Senators to risk damaging his herd - and livelihood - for a few juvenile seconds of cow-tipping. Contact R-CALF to express the anger at 406-252-2516.

5) PETA - If the plight of the rancher doesn’t capture your attention, maybe the plight of the poor helpless cow will. Cow tipping isn’t funny, and PETA wants to do something about it. Supporting Ozzy Osbourne, who notoriously bit the head off of a living dove won’t really fly in their book either. PETA recommends that you call the police, but if that doesn’t accomplish what you need, they provide a phone number for their hotline here.

6) Montana Restaurant Association - Illegal immigration is a national problem, so it’s unfortunate that Senator Baucus felt the need to single out restaurants in his quest to curb illegal hiring practices. For the sake of your local watering hole, contact the MRA here: (406) 256-1005.

7) Any number of Illegal Immigrant Advocacy groups - Great! A vigilante United States Senator rounding up any illegal immigrant looking folks (mostly identifiable from their darker skin and broken English, I hear) for deportation. There’s a lot of rage to be generated here since Illegal Immigrants have been gaining political power for some time. The Open Borders Coalition is a good place to start. It’s 130 organizations with the shared goal of preventing Baucus-style racism. Call them for a total list of members at 617-350-5480.

8.) D.A.R.E. - getting ‘hopped up’ on a foreign chemical is a glorified reference to drug use. Replacing an illicit drug type with “Red Bull” merely coats the payload while maintaining the problematic content - sort of like putting LSD on a cube of sugar. A United States Senator ought not set an example of using a drug - be it LSD or Red Bull - for the purpose of getting hopped up. You can contact D.A.R.E. here.

9) Focus on the Family - Ozzy Osbourne is well-known for his fascination with the occult and his encouragement of experimentation in Satanic ritual. There are any number of Evangelical Christian organizations that are perfectly geared to generate the kind of outrage we want. One of the most powerful is James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. The contact web form is here. Of course, your messages will go further if you are able to pepper them with scripture. Ask yourself - rhetorically - why is Baucus promoting the occult?

10) Montana Frat Boys - Max claims that he is going to shotgun a Mad Dog 20-20. But MD 20-20 comes in glass bottles and any self-respecting binge-drinker knows you can only shotgun out of a can. Sans can, you’re not shotgunning so much as beer-bonging. Where to begin the outrage on this one? It’s a hard choice, but contacting the Greek system at MSU (greek@montana.edu) and U of M (greeklife@umontana.edu) is a good place to get in touch with individual fraternity chapters. Ask for the social chairs.

11) Americans for Tax Reform - ATR is just one of a lot of organizations that would have a lot of interest in using tax dollars to gamble. We can cover the gambit here, from people offended by the mis-use of money that could go to giving stuff to poor people to those who want taxes eliminated all the way to the people who think that the Federal Income Tax is illegal. Contact ATR at friends@atr.org.

12) A Better Montana Without Gambling - Gambling isn’t a joke - especially when it helps destroy lives, families, communities and entire states. Contact Tom Shellenberg at BMWG here.

13) Students Against Violence Everywhere - Why would a United States Senator advocate any activity that would precipitate the necessity to “bounce” him from a bar? In most cases, that activity is some combination of drinking too much and violence (usually inspired by the drinking). SAVE will not be happy to hear of this sort of rhetoric, and the grr-factor of a student organization is always formidable. Get the grr going here.

14) The Raider Nation - This one’s pretty self-explanatory, but you can get the ball of rage rolling here. You might also want to try the City of Oakland or any member California’s Congressional Delegation (they are quite rage savvy).

15) Barry Manilow International - What is the deal with Baucus attacking Barry Manilow fans? Personally, I think if this is done right this could be one of the strongest sources of rage ever. One key to rage is anger, and there’s no anger like the self-hatred of anyone who would be a member of the International Barry Manilow Fan Club. Get rockin on the message boards by clicking here.

16) CREW - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington did a great job of generating rage in 2006. Let’s see if they’ve still got the touch. See, Baucus is asking a private for-profit organization to be the Official Spokesman of the United States Senate - a promotion specifically forbidden by Senate Ethics Rules. Sure, he’s scoring some points with the media but he’s doing so at the expense of the integrity of his office. Get your ethical rage on here.

Look, this is just the tip of the iceberg. For every organization listed with grounds for righteous offense, there are thousands more. Of course, my point is less that you should contact any of these groups (if you feel inclined to, have at it), and more that anything can be offensive to someone.

And you know what? That offends me, which is what we call a paradox. Happy anger-mongering folks!

Jason over at Intelligent Discontent is upset that Max is spending tax dollars to tell us things that the media has already told him.  Made me think about how nice it must be to be a Democrat - where you don’t have to promote yourself because the media is doing it for you…

But he’s got a point - why is Mr. Money Bags appropriating himself tax dollars when he’s been bragging about how rich he is.  Sort of like a millionaire taking welfare.

Or a rich kid on state funded health insurance.

Here comes the Max Baucus media blitz designed to scare people out of the race. It’s no secret that Baucus plays in the arena of scorched earth political destruction - making him the only Montana politician who has ever insinuated an opponent was homosexual for political gain (where’s the outrage?)

Baucus broke the 2008 election hymen in 2007 with his ads about State Children’s Health Care, or SCHIP. SCHIP, by the way, will be the biggest Heisman Vote issue of this election cycle. According to Max, SCHIP is going to feature highly in the his second volley. The only problem is this: Baucus hasn’t actually done anything other than brag that he’s done something. He oversaw a bill that he knew would be vetoed, and feigned outrage. He knew he didn’t have to votes to override the veto, but when the veto-override failed, he feigned shock. But Baucus is known for exaggerating his success when reporting accomplishments to Montana. We’re too stupid to learn the truth, right?

So anyway, you’re probably wondering what that title means. Go ahead and say “One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three Mississippi.” That took you about three seconds.

Now, whenever you are subjected to one of Max’s 30-second commercials when you’d rather be watching Stargate Atlantis, just count “One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three Mississippi.” That’s a tiny fraction more of that 3-second spot than was paid for with Montana funds. The rest - 90 percent - came from special interests in California, New York and everywhere else.

“One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three Mississippi.”