Archive for the 'Tester' Category

A new poll released by Montana State University-Billings showed some pretty interesting numbers. Here they are distilled:

Schweitzer:
Approve: 63%
Disapprove: 18%
Undecided: 19%

Baucus:
Approve: 64%
Disapprove: ~18%
Undecided: ~18%

Tester:
Approve: 57%
Disapprove: 16%
Undecided: 27%

Rehberg:
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 17%
Undecided: 24%

Now, there are a few interesting take away points here.

1. Montanan’s love their governor and senior member of the Senate. Brown and company beware.

2. While Tester is doing well for this early in the game, there is a lot of room for things to go south for him. I am a little surprised by this number, expecting more of a bitter feeling to linger after the last election.

3. While Rehberg is doing well, he doesn’t seem to have left much of an impression on people for this late in the game. There is a lot of room for things to go south for him, and I fully expect that those numbers will quickly dwindle when they were pitted with a viable alternative next November.

4. The core of the Montana Republic party is smaller than I had assumed. It looks to me to be around 16 to 18% (Note: Republic party is not a typo, if they cant take the time to say the last two letter of my party’s name, neither can I)

In support of number 3 above, consider the states support for the Iraq war:

The poll found that only 35 percent of Montanans surveyed now support the decision to go to war in Iraq. About 58 percent oppose that decision, up from 48 percent in both 2005 and 2006 in the same poll.

Let us all take this time to remember that Rehberg has voted in lockstep with Bush on this issue since day one. Also, consider that Bush had an 87% approval rating in 2001 but has slipped to 35% now. Can you say ’sinking ship’? Good. I knew you could.

These numbers would be good ones for Tester and Baucus to remember too:

63 percent say the country is moving in the wrong direction; 19 percent say it’s moving in the right direction.

We want change, not rhetoric.

I am really tired of trying to be somewhat diplomatic on issues, which has been my want as of late. Today’s veto of the health and education spending bill just before he was handed another $471-billion in supplemental spending for the pentagon shows that the man doesn’t give a damn about anything but his war.

I’ll put it to you this way: it is estimated 18,000 American’s die each year from a lack of health care. This is real stuff. The statistical chance of getting killed by a terrorist in this country is next to null. About 3000 in the last 10 years? 180,000 have died in that same time span from a lack of health care. how many people have died in America from an Iraqi terrorist in the last 10 years? Zero. What the hell is going on here that we have a president that cares more about a non-threat than a real threat?

I urge Democrat’s to stand behind this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won’t approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.
-
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
-
If Bush vetoes the bill, “then the president won’t get his $50 billion,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
-
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.

Email Jon Tester and Max Baucus on this. Remind them exactly what America’s priorities ought to be. I was going say to contact Denny Rehberg on this, but then I remembered that he drank the kool-aid right down and is a lockstep supporter of George Bush’s war over education and healthcare. Have a look at Bill Kennedy instead.

Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus delivered a joint press release today rebuking Judge Mukasey for not answering question on waterboarding. They will not capitulate and they will not vote for Mukasey.

“From fighting terrorism, fraud, corruption and the scourge of meth to gaining the trust of the American people the next Attorney General has a huge task ahead. Over the past several weeks, we have listened carefully to what both Judge Mukasey has said and what he has refused to say.
-
We are deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s refusal to acknowledge what our courts, our military and every single previous administration has recognized: waterboarding is torture and it is illegal. Failure by our government to repudiate torture exposes American men and women fighting around the world to potential danger and injustice.
-
For too long the Department of Justice has lacked an independent leader who will attack the many problems that face this country, while preserving the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution. We do not believe that Judge Mukasey will be that needed independent voice and we cannot, in good conscience, vote for his confirmation.”

Good job sirs. We appreciate you standing up on the side of right. Court precedence on this is set and clear: waterboarding is torture. Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin underwent the process in order to determine if it is torture and determined that yes, it was unquestionably torture. This process is torture, it breaks American and international law and we do not need another Attorney General that is willing to rewrite the law.

Seems like the Iraq War was the big loser in Montana.

Both Helena’s and Missoula’s anti-Iraq war referendums won decisively with majority numbers - Helena’s taking nearly 62% of support, and Missoula with almost 65%!

Reaffirming Helena’s anti-Iraq War referendum vote was the dismissal of the anti-anti Iraq War referendum - a call to give Bush a blank check, with no conditions, for funding of the Iraq war - by a slightly-less than the nearly 62% support the anti-Iraq war referendum received.

Only two cities, I know, but I’ll take the time to point out that both are over 60% threshold…..

7 U.S. forces were killed on Monday.

3857 U.S. forces have been killed in Iraq.

2007 has been the deadliest year.

853 U.S. forces have died this year.

118 U.S. forces have been killed since September 1st.

The worse previous year was 2004, with 849 U. S. forces killed.

24 Sons of Montana have died.

How many more?

Email Rep. Dennis Rehberg and tell him “Not One More!”

Email Sen. Max Baucus and tell him “Not One More!”

Email Sen. Jon Tester and tell him “Not One More!”

Support our U.S. forces by bringing them home.

Today, the upper house of our great legislative body wasted precious time passing a feel-good amendment when it should have working on more important issues.  The amendment read:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David II. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Of course, this amendment was issued in response to recent Move On advertisements that have attacked General Petraeus.  It angers me that the Senate feels the need to wag their collective finger at Americans using their right to free speech and political expression.  Furthermore, this bill again contains the feel good support-the-troops overtone; once again suggesting the fallacy that opposing the war is opposing the troops.

It was the reference to the troops that won this amendment its overwhelming support, with a vote of 72-25.   Once again we see how hesitant our representatives are to call a spade a spade when allegations of being unpatriotic are floating about.  Both Tester and Baucus embarrassed our state by signing onto this ‘amendment’. The Senate has far more pressing business to take care of; they should spend their time solving the Iraq problem instead of censuring people who are just saying their peace.

Besides, if anyone deserves to be scolded for their behavior towards our military service people, there are far more appropriate targets.

I came across an interesting story today that reminded me of something way back in the archives of the 2006 elections. I posted a piece at The Wrong Dog’s Life Chest and at the old Left In The West where I discussed the fact that Conrad Burns had used deceptive language in his press releases to make it look as though he had already procured funding that he had not. One of the items that he declared funding as ‘procured’ was the Billings stadium. In these posts, I made the claim that he was did not have the political capitol to pull these off, since many in the GOP senate were already writing him off.

<SHAMELESS_TOLD_YOU_SO> As I recall, many in the right wing blogs said I was dead wrong. In fact Eric Coobs did a whole post on why I was wrong and how Burn’s would deliver. Well, he didn’t. </SHAMELESS_TOLD_YOU_SO> Now I see that Jon Tester and Max Baucus had to go to the mat to make sure that funding came through. Now, I am not sure that this is the perfect usage for federal dollars, but here is what Jon and Max had to say:

Montana’s two Democratic senators angrily fought the amendment. They said replacing Cobb Field, a wooden structure that has deteriorated, will bring economic development to Billings.
-
“This new stadium will spur redevelopment efforts and revitalization of the area,” Sen. Max Baucus said. “Over 100,000 people attended events at Cobb Field last year. For a state with 900,000 people, that’s a lot.”
[snip]
Sen. Jon Tester said the new stadium will play a major role in Billings.

“That’s why they voted to raise their own taxes by several million dollars to rebuild it,” he said.

Now, this raises a question that I have been seeing floated around the right wing blogs, so maybe it is time to address it. Jon Tester did campaign against earmarks, but he was very clear on what kind of earmarks he was talking about. The kind that are silently inserted into bills without oversight or committee discussion. The kind of earmarks that Burns put in for Jack Abramoff. This is something that Jon and Max felt was important for Billings Montana, and they might be right. The point is that it was discussed in and debated in the light of day with oversight.

The language has gotten polluted, there is a difference between ‘earmarks’ and procuring funding. What Tester claimed during the election:

The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working. Good projects, like this land-grant university, can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day. Quite frankly, I don’t support earmarks, period.
-
If a project’s a good project, which includes probably most if not all of those 34 earmarks, they could withstand scrutiny in front of the entire Congress. I’m not for earmarks because they don’t pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up.

And that is exactly what he did here. He stood up in font of the entire Senate and spoke on why this money should be brought back to Montana.

In a speech on the floor Tuesday, Tester defended his support of the Billings earmark.
-
“I’m standing here today to vigorously defend why I requested this funding project in the light of day,” Tester said. “And I’m going to bat for it because Cobb Field deserves funding. There are no secrets here. There is no waste.”

Again, I am not sure that rebuilding Cobb field is the best use of the federal dollars to spur economic growth in Billings. I am not an economist. I can say that I more clearly approve of some of the other items in the 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Funding Bill:

$1 million to help the Great Falls Transit District buy four new fuel-efficient buses.
[snip]
$600,000 to help transport and rehabilitate housing from Malmstrom Air Force Base at Great Falls to be used on the Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation;
$650,000 for ExplorationWorks in Helena, to help complete a new science museum;
$400,000 to help restore the historic Daly Mansion in Hamilton; and
$1.5 million for an I-15 Custer Avenue Interchange in Helena.
The most expensive projects are road work: $7 million to rebuild 4.5 miles of Shiloh Road in Billings, and $6 million for a eight-mile-long project to reroute U.S. Highway 93 around Kalispell to connect with U.S. 2. U.S. 93 also would be expanded to four lanes in that area.

Here I hate to confound myself by agreeing with Eric Coobs on this (of course, he deleted most of his blog so you could never prove it if I hadn’t told you so), but he once made a valid point on this issue. I pay federal taxes, a lot of them. I want to see our fair share of that money come back here and serve a positive purpose.

I am not a farmer nor an agri-economist, so I do not claim to be an expert on the topic or farm subsidies. A short piece caught my eye the other day concerning Jon Tester and subsidies for farms converting to organic methods. According to the piece, Tester has authored legislation that would pay up to four annual payments of up to $20,000 to farms converting to organic processes. The logic seems pretty sound to me:

“Organic agriculture is the fastest growing sector of agriculture today, and if we want to increase prices at the farm gate, this is one of the ways to do it. And it will help Montana producers meet the needs of the organic sector for those who chose to use it.”

We all know the benefits of certain organic practices, they are scientifically verified and make common sense: less chemicals that touch your food is better. The main question here is ‘Is this a good investment of our tax dollars?’.

Overall, we want cheap food, right? We have cheap food in this country due to subsidies, right? Not according to this analysis on corn subsidies from Iowa State University:

Suppose that the removal of farm programs caused the price of corn to increase by 5 percent. The price of pork would then increase by about 0.53 percent. That is, pork chops that cost $3.00 per pound with farm subsidies would increase in price by less than two cents per pound. If corn prices were to rise by 10 percent with the removal of subsidies, then pork chops would cost only three cents per pound more than they currently do. Because corn represents a smaller share of the final value of beef and dairy products, retail prices for these products would go up by a smaller amount (in percentage terms) than the price of pork.
-
It is difficult to come up with examples in which subsidized U.S. commodities have a greater than 10 percent share of final retail value. And at this maximum share, it would take a doubling of commodity prices to increase consumer prices by 10 percent. But no credible analyst has ever estimated that farm payments result in such a large supply expansion that their withdrawal would cause commodity prices to double. The idea that U.S. commodity policy is really a cheap food policy is a myth.

Well, that makes sense. What this discussion doesn’t account for is the number of farms that might close shop if subsidies end. Farming is really difficult work, there are much easier ways to make a living (says the computer programmer). It turns out that there are many other implications to subsidies:

Asked about the implications of eliminating farm subsidies, Rich Pottorf, chief economist with Doane Agricultural Services in St. Louis, said that “There’s no doubt a removal of subsidies would cause a horrible upheaval in agriculture, that land prices would drop and rural areas would be in horrible pain.”
-
Alan Libbra, a farmer from Madison County, Illinois, took the point further. “When people my size get pushed, the businesses they use get pushed out with them…. That just kills these little communities, kills the employment and kills the tax base.”
-
Their point is that farm subsidies help more people than just the farmers who receive them. They also help those whose incomes and opportunities are tied to business done with those farmers. What is so interesting about this, and what is not acknowledged or apparent in the article, is that this same argument can be turned around to describe the people who are hurt by the subsidies.

This brings us back to Tester’s proposal. Isn’t organic farming really a value-adding proposition? The end product is the same as the non-organic farm? Food. The difference is that it comes with a branding that instantly adds to it value. Organic food sells for more. The initial investment is higher, but if the profit margin is the same the overall income of the farmer will increase. That farmer will ostensibly have more disposable income that will likely be returned to the local economy. If that increased money put into the local economy is greater than the initial investment, isn’t that a net gain for the economy as a whole?

In a nutshell, the subsidy is worth while if, and only if the total benefits outweigh the total costs. Of course, that money had to be collected from tax payers. Of course the tax money was collected at a cost to the economy. The central question is: would the benefits of the original taxpayers in the economy outweigh the benefits of an investment in organic farming?

Last week I wrote a post here about the Bush administration’s relaxation of mountain top mining. At the end, I left some contact links for Baucus, Tester and Rehberg. Well, I did my part and emailed all of them on the topic. I received a response from Jon Tester today and it had a couple of points that I wanted to share:

Dear Shane:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about the Bush Administration’s efforts to sanction mountaintop strip mining.
-
As you know, the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) Reclamation and Enforcement has proposed to exempt coal mining wastes from a 1983 regulation known as the Stream Buffer Zone Rule which prohibits coal mining activities from disturbing areas within 100 feet of streams. I have some real concerns with the implications of OSM’s proposal.
-
This proposal from the Bush Administration would allow for mining operations that are similar to the proposed Cline Mine in British Columbia. I am concerned that the proposed Cline Mine would send toxic runoff into the Flathead Watershed. Coal mining is an important part of Montana’s and our nation’s economy. It keeps the lights on in American homes and businesses, but there are appropriate places and appropriate ways to mine. We must make every effort to minimize the environmental risks associated with mining. If the United States cannot set the example of responsible mining, it becomes harder for us to ask our neighbors to the north to refrain from polluting Montana’s Flathead River.
-
Mountaintop strip mining, in the manner the Administration proposes, threatens wildlife habitat, sends toxic runoff into streams and rivers, and literally blows mountains to pieces. It may initially cost more to mine in an environmentally responsible way. However, the consequences associated with irresponsible mining practices have long term costs in cleanup, health and lost outdoor recreational opportunities.
-
I appreciate the time that you have taken to be involved and informed about this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if I can be of further assistance.
-
Sincerely,
-
Jon Tester
United States Senator

I appreciate that Senator Tester really seems to grasp and be concerned about the topic at hand. Seriously, I am. I think that he means what he says here and he is saying the right things, mostly.

However, I am a little disappointed that he only talks about ways to keep col mining going as cleanly as possible instead of more on the alternate fuels that we heard so much about during the campaign.

The questions I pose to you, the loyal reader, are: Are we so dependent on coal that we are not likely to transition off of it anytime soon? Is it so entrenched in our economy and minds in Montana that we aren’t taking alternatives seriously? While I do appreciate the Jon has worked hard on the alternate fuels, does a successful politician have to support coal in this state?

With all the news over Senator Larry Craig what is missed is at what cost? To begin with, he will receive his retirement to the tune of some $136,000 dollars a year. So it must not go unnoticed that the crime does not fit the outcome very well does it?

Had it been a felony rather than a misdemeanor then this would not be the case. However, he will able to continue his lifestyle in whatever manner he chooses and we as taxpayers will pick up the bill.

Speaking of costs, there were some 1,800 civilians killed over the past month in Iraq. In one instance the cost of life was 500 in just one incident.

And then there is my own battle with the VA’s disability rating board. I just found out that my Agent Orange cancer disability payments have been reduced from 100% to 20% which is not only a huge deduction (like $2,000) because the people who oversee the veterans benefits have concluded that I am cancer free after just one year of remission but they can’t explain the huge loss of weight which is well over 100 pounds, the night-sweats, the sleepless nights that come in one to two hour blocks, the diminished lung capacity, the hoarseness of the vocal cords due to damage by chemicals used to kill the cancer and of course the huge loss of revenue because I was too sick to work.
Am I battling to fight this and do the right thing, Yes - But keep in mind that when you take on the VA you are appealing to the same people who determine what you do or do not get in terms of disability compensation. I’ve taken the steps of seeking help from both of our Senators (Bacus, Tester) and Congressman Reberg but that as I am sure most realize takes time and money both of which I do not have.
Clearly my medical records (both past and present) show that the side effects of the cancer are presenty even today but just try to prove to them that you are trying to do the right thing when it is clear that the government are more concerned with their own set of values and protecting their nest eggs to worry about the plight of the veteran.

Not long ago I was asked to share my experiences with the effects of service related health issues and you can trust that I shall. Why? Because this whole affair just simply is NOT fair. It IS about more than money it is about doing the right things for the right reasons.

Can they say the same?

The Senate voted to expand SChips on Thursday evening. Though Bush has threatened to veto the bill in the past, it was passed with a super-majority vote. Why? Well, most people in this country support universal health insurance, at a super-majority rate of 2 to 1. You can imagine that they sure as hell support healthcare for children.

Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus both came out in support of the bill. I commend them on taking this important step for Montanan’s. Why is it so important to Montana? Only half of the employers in Montana offer health coverage and this leaves a lot of kids at risk.

The average cost of a family health plan on the open market in Montana is about $8,000 per year, Baucus said. That’s about a fifth of the income of a family of four making twice the poverty level, or $41,300.
-
“CHIP offers affordable, comprehensive health coverage for working families,” Baucus said. “CHIP works and has helped thousands of Montana families.”
-
The 2007 Montana Legislature increased the family income eligibility cutoff for CHIP from 150 percent of the federal poverty level to 175 percent. That’s a yearly income of just more than $36,000 for a family of four, Baucus said. That change will add 2,000 children next year, he said.

Rehberg, on the other hand did not vote for the house version of the bill. Why?

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg on Wednesday voted against House Democrats’ bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, saying it’s based on an “extremist political ideology” to expand government-run health care.

By this line of thought, the American people follow “extremist political ideology” by a margin of 2 to 1? 66% of American’s are ‘extremists’?

In typical fashion, Dennis Rehberg wants to have it both ways, saying that he supports Chips, but does not support funding it. Additionally, he goes on to say that he did not vote to fund it because it would hurt senior citizens?

The House version funds the SCHIP expansion by increasing tobacco taxes and cutting $194 billion from the “Medicare Advantage” program, which are government payments to private insurance companies selling additional coverage plans for senior citizens on Medicare.
-
The federal government generally reimburses insurance companies for those payments. Congressional budget officials have said the government is overpaying private companies for the costs.
-
Rehberg said using the Medicare money to fund the SCHIP expansion is pitting senior citizens against kids in a battle for health care, and that 16,000 Montanans get coverage through Medicare Advantage.

The only problem with this logic is that the bill doesn’t take money from old people, it forces the ‘private insurance companies’ to stop bilking the government out of millions.

A Montana spokeswoman for AARP, the consumer group representing people 50 and over, said the group is “disappointed” with Rehberg’s vote. The measure actually strengthens Medicare programs for low-income seniors and reduces “excess payments” to private Medicare Advantage plans, said Pat Callbeck-Harper.

Thank you Jon Tester and Max Baucus for putting Montanan’s first. Dennis, I hope the insurance companies appreciate your work. Now we know where you all stand.

[Update 0] An interesting factoid on this one: According to MyDD, over half the GOP senators up for re-election this year voted against SChip. Hmmm.

While we are on the topic of government ignoring public opinion, there is one question I would like to ask congress:

Why Are You Waiting On Addressing Healthcare?

You have everything you need. A majority? Check. Support of the American people? Check. The will? That’s up to you.

A Majority?

When the American people swept the democrats in Washington (note that it happened that way, not the other way around), there was more than one thing on their mind. Iraq was front and center, but education and healthcare rank right up there. Why do I think that they would elect Democrats to do that over Republicans? Because they do.

“Who do you think would do a better job of moving us to a system where almost everyone could afford to get the health and medical services they needed: a Republican-controlled Congress or a Democratically-controlled Congress?“

Republican-controlled Congress 29
Democratically-controlled Congress 54