Interview With Brian Schweitzer
October 27th, 2003 | by mtpolitics |(Note: This post will remain on top until the first post on Tuesday morning. I added that qualifier just for you, Chad. New content will appear below.)
One of the nice features of Moveable Type is its ability to mail comments to you as they are added.
When I checked my email first thing Tuesday morning, I was surprised to find a comment attached to this post, signed by none other than Montana gubernatorial candidate Brian Schweitzer.
Being the trusting soul I am (har!), I imagined that it was something akin to the Dean Defense Force, with campaign volunteers swooping in to defend the candidate’s good name.
The more I thought about it, though, the more I wondered about the thing being written in the 1st person. So, I dropped a note to the email address that came with the comment.
Soon, I received a reply with a phone number to call to talk to Brian. When I got home from work, I dialed the number, fully expecting to get shunted around by various staffers. (Imagine David Spade saying, “And this is regarding…?”) After asking once, I was immediately connected to Brian, and we visited for about 1/2 hour on Tuesday. He is personable, engaging, energetic, and his ideas aren’t easily pigeonholed into a pat ideology. He talked about everything from education to health care to politics in and around Montana. He even chewed me out for slacking on my blog for the previous few days. He’s refusing money from PAC’s, yet has racked up record donations, all from individual donors. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is definitely sitting in the catbird seat for this race.
Brian graciously agreed to be interviewed via email, and I fully expected short, pat answers to the first question I posed, but he exceeded my expectations yet again, and responded to my first question with a rather lengthy treatise.
I had originally planned to compile a “conversation” and post it as one item, but it’s obvious that it won’t work that way, so I’m going to post the first question and answer, and go from there. Depending on the responses, I may incorporate them into my next question. If not, I have some more questions that I want to ask Mr. Schweitzer.
Finally, I want to thank Brian for taking the time to do this. To my knowledge, this may be a first for blogging in general — it’s definitely a first here in Montana, and I feel honored and humbled to be a part of it.
The first question I asked was this:
We visited about the need to grow businesses on Main Street. Part of your vision includes an education system that is better geared to deliver the skills that Montana needs.
What are some immediate overhauls that you would like to see to higher education in Montana?
Here is Brian’s reply:
I have traveled across Montana, listening to owners of small businesses tell me how we can move Montana forward. Time and again, I hear the same response: to grow Montana’s economy, we need more people who are trained in the skills that businesses require in order to operate and grow. We need people who finish their higher education with the training to immediately enter the trades. Main Street businesses need people who are skilled in information technologies, electronics, civil engineering technologies, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, auto repair, specialized lathe operation, specialized welding, and the operation of other specialized machinery. The list goes on and on. The demand for these skilled workers already exists in Montana, but now we need to find people with the skills to fill these jobs.
The most likely supplier of such capable workers is our community colleges. For the most part, four-year universities simply do not provide the technical training needed to enter the trades. Yet of the 32,000 students currently enrolled in Montana’s higher education system, only 4,000 attend community college. The problem is not that we have too many students in four-year universities, it’s that we have too few people choosing a program at a community college. I propose two solutions to rectify this dilemma.
First, high school seniors must be better informed of the options available to them after graduation. Too many students decide to go to one of Montana’s universities simply as a default choice. After a semester or two, they decide that four years at a university is not for them, and they drop out. Rather than re-enrolling at a community college, they abandon higher education altogether. As a result, they are then forced to accept lower-paying jobs in Montana, or leave the state altogether in order to make a decent living. Our high school career and guidance counselors must do a better job of presenting community colleges as an option. This will boost enrollment, and will produce a more educated workforce in our state.
Many students who complete a community college program will be inspired to continue their education by transferring to one of Montana’s universities and obtaining an advanced degree. Many more will finish community college and move directly into the high-paying, skilled labor positions that Montana’s economy needs in order to expand. An initiative to enroll more students in community colleges would not cost taxpayers a dime; all it requires is better communication between high school students, counselors, and community college admissions staff.
The second problem facing community colleges, and one that prevents many of our working families from sending their children, is the cost of tuition. Montana has the highest community college tuition in the nation. We rank higher than New York and New Hampshire, states whose average wages are double those in Montana. Our community colleges cost more than twice as much as those in Idaho and Wyoming, and a third more than those in the Dakotas. Within the last ten years, the state’s portion of higher education funding has fallen dramatically, forcing colleges to raise tuition to make up the difference. The spiraling tuition increases at our community colleges are stealing the dream of many Montana families to send their children to college. The state must restore its portion of college funding, so that high school seniors can enter community colleges and get the specialized technical training they need to drive Montana’s economy forward. Our children will have the opportunity to receive higher education and to work in their home state, and our we will all benefit from a highly skilled, well paid workforce.
41 Responses to “Interview With Brian Schweitzer”
By David on Oct 24, 2003 | Reply
Wow. Just “wow.” Good on ya, Craig, and kudos to Brian for “taking the plunge!”
By mtpolitics on Oct 24, 2003 | Reply
I think Brian deserves more thanks than I. I was just sitting here minding my own business when he butted in!
By Rita on Oct 25, 2003 | Reply
Good job!
And Brian’s right too. I see it every day in my community college classes….and it’s the primary reason I chose to go there instead of the university.
By Rebecca on Oct 25, 2003 | Reply
Craig, this is a fantastic thing you’re doing. Schweitzer is spot-on in his assessment of what’s wrong with higher education in MT (and elsewhere). I’d like to add that abandoning Vo-Tech programs at both the high school and community college level (as MT apparently has done and has CA has most definitely done) is a HUGE mistake. Not everyone is “college material,” yet our system of post-secondary education blindly assumes that a traditional 4-year degree is the only way to educate our workforce.
Additionally, Montana’s insane cost-of-education to wage ratio effectively ensures that those people who manage to mortgage their lives and get a degree at a MT university will have to leave in order to make enough money to repay their student loans. This is particularly true of teachers. California has been poaching new teachers from Montana for years.
And don’t get me started on the problems of the tribal K-12 schools. My sister has taught in District 9 (Browning) for almost 30 years, and she could tell you stories that would reduce you to tears.
By James R. Rummel on Oct 25, 2003 | Reply
Good post.
James
By Wulfgar! on Oct 25, 2003 | Reply
This is super-fantastic good. I hope you’re ready for traffic, because it has just become my mission in life to get every citizen of this fine state to read this interview. Are you going to compile the entirety of this on a seperate webpage?
By michael on Oct 25, 2003 | Reply
I just want to throw in my two-cents worth! Not only will I be supporting Brian for the job but I am hoping that I (a mere Master Barber) can bring back barbering in the State of Montana.
The closing of the ONLY barber school this past December is a HUGE mistake and was no doubt driven by the current administration citing $$$$$ as the reason but I would have to argue that there is a HUGE difference between a barber and a hairstylist.
By Ghost Dog on Oct 25, 2003 | Reply
I read in the Gazette within the last year that one of the bigest problems the sugar factory in Sidney has is finding and recruiting welders and electricians.
By Chad on Oct 25, 2003 | Reply
I’ll be honest, it’s rather unnerving seeing my name mentioned at the head of such an auspicious post.
But I believe I’ve lamented something similar regarding higher education to my brother on multiple occasions. My seemingly radical idea on this issue is to make high school two or so years longer and do away with all of the college programs that don’t result in some sort of professional licensing like law, medicine or many engineering fields.
But that’s not really practical from a human standpoint.
By Jim Brady on Oct 26, 2003 | Reply
Craig:
Sorry to rain on the Brian Schweitzer Parade, but to me, Schweitzer is just another politician paying lip-service to the taxpayers with the old “educashun boogyman”.
His version is, we are “doing it wrong”!!!! Holy Crap! The sky is falling!!!
Actually Schweitzer hits the problem right on the nose in his first paragraph but then appears to be completely oblivious as to WHY that is a problem!!
He thinks fixing how or where people are educated will somehow create a need for the skill……
He says:
“Main Street businesses need people who are skilled in information technologies, electronics, civil engineering technologies, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, auto repair, specialized lathe operation, specialized welding, and the operation of other specialized machinery.”
No, Brian…Not Main Street businesses..Montana doesn’t need another hardware store or gas station on Main Street turning into a casino..
Same as Montana doesn’t need another anthro major coming out of U of M or another elementary ed teacher coming out of (Eastern or UM Billings or what ever it’s called)or even another diesel mechanic from a junior college.
Why? Because after all the money the Montana taxpayer invests in the system, two out of three are going to leave the State, and never return..(Even the Anthro major will leave when they figure out the Lewis and Clark thing is over blown and there are States with no income tax…)
Schweitzer and Montana leaders need to shuffle around in the ashes of the Stattes previously quasi-friendly business infastructure and see if there is anything left to salvage. Montana needs to see if there is anything to be done that might undo the scorched-earth destruction of business the radical socialist educrats, environazis and double-dipping “gumment” employees have wrought since they re-wrote the Constitution to insure that “NEVER AGAIN would Montana wear the “copper collar”".
Off hand, I’d say there is no need to worry about ever beings slaves to a paycheck, because if I had to guess, I’d say Montana will never have any kind of sustaining industry again…Ever.
And you won’t have any of the kind of skills Schweitzer says the State is in such dire need of, because it takes business like mining, logging, oil and gas development, manufacturing and shipping to develop the NEED. A need which has been effectively destroyed in Montana.
Unless you have the need for the skill, why would you keep paying to pump out the trainee? There is a hell of a lot bigger reason to look at the Montana education system than Schweitzers suggestions to move things around…….
Kind of an aside, but this thought comes to me from the old days at UM..
You know, the reviled Anaconda Company lawyers who wrote bills for the legislature in the Montana Club back in the old days were a hell of a lot smarter than the ones who wrote the bills that let Montana Power peddle all the dams and lines, then piss off all the money.
Those Anaconda guys actually built the State into an industrial dynamo where everybody who wanted one, had a job..and a future, in Montana.
I’ll bet K. Ross Toole is spinning in his grave at the thought…!
JMB
By Rita on Oct 26, 2003 | Reply
While it may be true that those who know how will always work for those who know why, it is equally true that those who know how will always be able to find a job.
I’ve often thought I should’ve been a plumber….would have all the work I wanted and people would be much happier to see me.
By Matt Singer on Oct 26, 2003 | Reply
Jim, Before you attack Schweitzer’s plan, get your numbers straight. As I posted over at NotGeniuses.com in response to this post, heavier subsidizing of two year programs makes more sense for Montana because whereas 50% of four-year university students leave the state upon graduation, only 10% of two-year program graduates do.
It isn’t two-thirds in either situation and for the two-year programs that Schweitzer is talking about supporting, you’re off by more than 150%.
By connie Wardell on Oct 27, 2003 | Reply
Brian’s idea makes a lot of sense. We moan about all the teachers that will retire in 5 years, but what about firemen, refinery workers, nurses, auto mechanics (anyone reading gasoline alley??), not to mention the skill of carpenter, plumber HVAC, tape adn texture, and the list goes on. All of these industries have said to me at some time in the past year–we looked around and everyone is almost 50 and there are no younger ones coming behind us. Teachers and school supt cannot arrange this as their reality is K-12, 5 years of college and guaranteed lifetime employment. It takes a businessman, and a long range thinker and someone willing to listen and serve in public service in the old fashioned manner of my Grandfather. Brian is all of that and he definitely has my vote and my support.
By shannon on Oct 27, 2003 | Reply
Schweitzer’s discussion of community colleges is definitely refreshing - and needed! Community colleges are such a valuable resource for people looking to further their skills and knowledge without the time and financial investment required of a 4 year university program.
also, in response to Jim’s finger pointing comments about the destruction of Montana: atleast Schweitzer is putting forth a plant to create new industries in Montana- ones that are focused around technological development, not fossil fuels and resource depletion.
it’s about time we had the oppurtunity to put someone who is putting Montana’s progress ahead of special interests!
By shannon on Oct 27, 2003 | Reply
that should read ‘putting forth a plan..’, not ‘plant’. apologies.
By Aaron Loyd on Oct 27, 2003 | Reply
The campaign needs a blog like this up all the time. Look what it’s done for dean.
By mtpolitics on Oct 27, 2003 | Reply
Community colleges aren’t the only things in need of reform in Montana’s higher education system.
While it would be nice to lower costs all around — at community colleges, and at the 4-year schools — how do you propose to achieve that? Will the taxpayers be called on to further subsidize all of these institutions, or will someone take a look at redundant programs and start cutting those? How about trimming some administrative fat?
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea — I’d just like to know how you want to implement it.
By Rebecca on Oct 27, 2003 | Reply
Well, cutting out some administrative flab would be a fine way to start. The situation here in the Cal-State system (and I’m pretty darned sure MT is no different) is that the ratio of instructional to administrative funding has shifted markedly over the past 10 years. It used to be 60% instructional to 40% administrative; it is now 40% instructional to 60% administrative.
Heck, the university I teach at has an assistant dean of students that no student has ever seen. She’s probably taking in about $80-125K a year. In turn, Ms. Invisible Assistant Dean of Students needs her own personal administrative assistant (full-time, naturally). That’s about $40-50K a year. The administrative assistant needs an assistant also, so that’s probably another $26-35K a year (less if that person is part-time). Since the Invisible Assistant Dean’s job had been vacant for more than 20 years (no, I’m not kidding), it took a big ol’ bunch of money to create an office for her, complete with brand-new furniture, carpet, computers and so on. I’ll wager the university could save about a quarter of a million a year simply by eliminating the IADofS job.
And I’ll bet that within each college (e.g., Arts and Letters, Sciences, etc.) on our campus, there is at least one job that is just as redundant as the IADofS.
By Will on Oct 28, 2003 | Reply
As a former student lobbyist at the Montana State Legislature I have a pretty good understanding as to where U dollars come from and how they are spent.
However, before I begin with that I would like to say that Brian is right on with his assessment that two year schools are important key to economic development. These are grassroots educational institutions that are funded by state, county, and student dollars (at a 25, 25, 50 split) As an alumni of both a CC and MSU can definately atest to the direct impact CC’s have in thier community. He can run with this…
To address the notion of “cutting the fat” quite frankly there is very little fat in the Montana University System. No state in the Western US educates students at such a low cost as Montana. We educate students at $6,670 per year. Our peer state average is close to 7,800 per year. (These are Legislative Fiscal Division Numbers)
Secondly, the notion of cutting programs and closing campuses is often brought forth as ideal solutions for cost cutting. But remember that if you are cutting a program or class you lose all the tuition revenue that a student taking that class would pay. For example, cutting a program that costs 10,000 will result in actual savings to the state of only around 4,000 dollars. The rest is tuition dollars that are no longer being paid. I remember running some numbers during the last session and MSU-Bozeman would of had to close both the College of Business and the College of Nursing to not increase tuition. And if you close those colleges how many students are no longer going to go to Bozeman? Over a 1,000. It just doesnt really workout..
As for closing campuses, remember you have to put those students somewhere. If you close Havre you need to build new dorms in Missoula. It doesnt pay either.
So what is the problem? Why is it less expensive for Montana residents to go to school in North Dakota than to stay in state? Simply, our state has made a public policy decision to defund higher education in the past ten years. The U system recieved the same amount of dollars today as it did in 1992. Per person we pay $149 to higher education. Peer states 233. The state kicks in $3336 dollars per student per year. $2629 less than our peer average.
During the 1990’s, we chose tax breaks over education. Its that simple.
Finally, I would like to address some other comments:
Rebecca: Instruction accounted for 55 percent of U expenditures in 1980. And 53 percent in 2002. Adminstration accounted for 30 percent in 1980. 28 percent in 2002. The rest is research, facilities, and scholarships. You left those catagories out of your facts all together…
Jim- You seem to long for the good old days. And you are correct that natural industry will never return to Montana as in the past. Global trade is the reason for that just as much as environmental regulations. Its hard to compete with Brazilian gold mines that have to pay several dollars a day per worker and can discharge water of any quality they want anywhere…
Secondly, the good old days are not as great as you make them out to be. Go check out the Berkeley pit a multi billion dollar problem that we still dont have a solution to that has the very real potential to kill every fish in the Clark Fork. Remember the winter of 1903? when the Anaconda Company starved Montana into submission. Nostagia is great but lets be realistic.
By mtpolitics on Oct 28, 2003 | Reply
In other words, Will, your answer is, “Raise Taxes.” Correct?
By Will Hammerquist on Oct 28, 2003 | Reply
OK lets think about this. Tuition has increased 271 percent since 1990. At no point in history has higher education cost more in MOntana by any measure CPI, minimum wage, per capita income. Only 55 percent of MT seniors go on to high school. Compare that to 65 in the Dakotas. We are pricing students out of higher education its that simple. Something has to be done.
Now is raising taxes the answer? Its either that or continue increasing tuition. Quite frankly, I dont think we can afford tuition increases like this much longer. We are already losing high school graduates and college graduates at a record pace (no state comes close in this catagory except Alaska). So yes. Lets raise some taxes but I think that it would suprise you as to what we can do.
Last session we had a bill to provide every graduating senior (who met the below requirements in high school) a $1,000 scholarship that could be used at any public institution of higher education in the state. (4 year, 2 year, vo tech) This scholarship could be renewed for up to 4 years. And required 12 hours of community service per semester, and a minimum GPA of 2.5. We called it the Montana Citizen Scholarship.
How did we fund it? With a 2.3 cent tax per can of soda pop. Now would that tax increase hurt anybody? No, in fact Arkansas has had the tax since 1990 and the director of revenue told me that it is the most successful tax in the history of the state. So yes, lets raise some taxes. Invest in our future, in our community, and not some multibillion dollar boondoggle on the other side of the planet. I realize that that was kind off the topic but it makes me sick when I have friends who couldnt afford college and we are spending that type of money on such a fiasco..
By mtpolitics on Oct 28, 2003 | Reply
It would have sufficed to say, “Yes, let’s raise taxes.”
As a taxpayer, I might be a little more willing to part with my hard-earned money if I was getting a good product.
Increasingly, there are high school (and college) graduates who can’t write a coherent sentence; much less punctuate it correctly. Instead of learning about economics and history, we’re yapping on about “diversity” and “feelings.”
So our workforce is increasingly populated by sullen cretins who think that they are entitled to something by virtue of them just being able to draw breath.
As it so happens, it looks to me like Montana Citizen Scholarship is a grand idea, but it’s not enough, is it? Where are you going to get the rest to cover the shortfall? Increase the tax on pop? Since it’s for college kids, how about a $.03/can tax on beer? How about my property taxes? Heaven knows those aren’t high enough.
I think before we start talking about raising taxes, we need to talk about improving the final product and spreading the tax load around a little bit.
As far as investing in the future, it seems to me that preventing lunatics from killing us is a decent investment. After all, what good does an education do if you’re dead?
By Paul Smith on Oct 28, 2003 | Reply
Before Montana’s next gubernatorial election, every voter needs to ask him or herself one very simple question: is Montana better off now than it was ten years ago? The fact is, Republicans have controlled every branch of Montana’s government for a decade. This means that during that time, they could have passed ANY law they wanted to. That’s how majorities work. Yet after ten years of single-party governance, Montana now ranks last in the nation in wages, and first in the number of people who are forced to work two jobs to support their families. Our lawmakers have slashed funding for education and social services, saying there just isn’t enough money to go around, while giving away over $400 million to just 20 out of state corporations. And let’s not forget the debacle of electricity deregulation. So now we sit in 2003, looking at four more Republican gubernatorial candidates who have done nothing to distinguish themselves from the Republican politics that have gotten us into this mess in the first place. This ain’t rocket science folks; Montana desparately needs a change in leadership. We can’t afford four more years of the same old tune. This isn’t about “diversity” or “feelings,” this is about making sure that people have jobs that pay decent wages. Quite frankly, Brian Schweitzer is the only candidate who brings any new ideas to the table.
By mtpolitics on Oct 28, 2003 | Reply
Paul–
I like your email address.
By mtpolitics on Oct 28, 2003 | Reply
I hit “Post” too soon.
Paul, as it happens, I don’t necessarily think that the idea itself is bad, but implementation is important, too. It’s one thing to want to do something, but I’m also interested to know how and if we can do it within our means.
By superdan on Oct 28, 2003 | Reply
There is clearly fat to trim in the Montana University System. Administrators at UM and MSU are making 110-150,000 dollars a year. (Look it up, its public record) When questioned about their pay, they claim they need to offer competitive rates, compared to other states. Competitive as compared to New York? Why is it that the rest of Montana workers have to settle for low wages so we can live in a beautiful place? We all suffer while university administrators rake in the cash. People choose live in Montana because it is unique and wonderful, and usually take their second paycheck in the form of hunting, fishing, hiking etc… But not university administrators. They would rather have their cake and eat it too. Their jobs are simple. They have huge staffs (many of whom are overpaid as well) who do all their work for them. They are constantly on vacation and traveling on the state’s dime. If cuts are made, that is where the cuts need to be. Don’t put the burden of education on the students’ backs. They already carry more of the load than they should. It’s ridiculous. The state legislature has had to skimp for years, don’t ask them to cut more from education budgets. Subsidizing education is the state’s duty, and it has diminished substantially over the last decade. Meanwhile, administrators’ salaries continue to skyrocket. Don’t take it out on the students and the professors.
As for Montana becoming any kind of business mecca, good luck. The elephant sitting in the middle of this blog is the fact that we are in the middle of nowhere. There is no existing infrastructure, labor pool, raw materials or any other motivation for big businesses to come here. Taxes seem to be blamed for the reason businesses aren’t flocking to Montana. That’s a lie. We have absolutely nothing to offer a business but beautiful scenery. Why move a business all the way to Montana where you can’t buy the raw materials you need, or you have to pay outrageous prices to ship it here? Then you have to pay to ship it somewhere where people can afford to buy it. Any business in their right mind will establish itself near a major population center, which we obviously don’t have. The only people moving here are people who build trophy homes and stay here a few weeks out of the year. Sorry folks, but that doesn’t do us much good. Unless you’re a carpenter, developer, realtor or banker. Instead of coming up with some kind of ingenious scheme to pull us out of the bottom of the economic bucket by cutting funding to education, lets talk about supporting education so somebody can figure out how to get us out of this mess. By the way, this is one of the most lively and thought provoking discussions I have seen on the Web in a long time. It’s great to see so many people involved with so many different viewpoints. Healthy, informative and sane; very nice.
By Paul on Oct 29, 2003 | Reply
Craig,
After reading Brian’s most recent post, I think its clear we can implement some changes that are within our means. There is a lot of money going to waste that could be better put to use for the benefit of our state — I felt a little vindicated when I saw that Brian had also commented on the huge tax giveaways to out of state companies. The real issue here is whether our elected officials are looking forward or backward. The current administration seems to be trying to recapture the “glory days” of Montana when the natural resources industry was the basis of our economy. But let’s face it, global trade and mechanization have ensured that mining and timber companies will never employ as many workers in Montana as they once did. We need leaders with new ideas who can move Montana’s economy forward, not backward. Under the Republicans, Montana’s economy has stagnated. I have not yet heard a single substantive proposal from any of the Republican candidates that would indicate that they plan to do anything differently. As I stated before, the only candiadte I see with any new ideas is Brain Schweitzer.
Thanks for your comment. I hope you don’t think my email address is intruding on your territory here
By Gman on Oct 29, 2003 | Reply
Superdan, you are correct that Montana’s location is a demerit when it comes to attracting job-creating businesses. Nonetheless, you can’t rule out the fact that there are definitely some things that Montana can do to increase its small business friendliness and its tax competitiveness. See these studies:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/bp41.pdf
http://www.sbsc.org/Media/pdf/SBSI2003.pdf
In the first study by the Tax Foundation Montana ranks 22nd in tax competitiveness. Not bad until you consider that Wyoming is 1st and South Dakota is 6th. In the second study by the Small Business Survival Committee Montana ranks 38th in small business friendliness. That’s really bad in light of the fact that South Dakota is 1st and Wyoming is 3rd. Our regional competitors are kicking our butts.
Keep in mind that a stronger, more robust economy will provide more tax revenue to government — especially schools. It’s simple: there is more wealth to tax. Another important economic factor for Montana would be to allow extractive industries to move forward with their operations. We are the “Treasure State” after all. Currently, such industries are hogtied in court by radical environmental groups (like the Northern Plains Resource Council and Montana Environmental Information Center) — groups that can’t achieve their goals through the legislative process because their ideas are not widely accepted by the general public. I’m not saying, of course, that protecting the environment is not important. Stewardship is very important. The fact of the matter is that extractive industries are required to do environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. Oddly enough, this doesn’t placate the environmentalists. It’s not enough. One of the reasons Wyoming is filling its public coffers with revenues is because it allows extractive industry to move forward. Contrast this to Montana, where coal-bed methane interests have been hampered for years, despite compliance with environmental regulations. Also keep in mind that such tactics steal livelihoods from people — wealth is not created and poverty increases.
There is not doubt that economic growth has a price. We must balance the need for economic growth with the need of protecting the environment. Let me add that environmental protection does not have to come from command and control government. There are free market incentives that can be used in lieu of command and control environmental protection policies. Check out the Political Economic Research Center — also known as the Center for Free Market Environmentalism — in Bozeman at http://www.perc.org.
By Kendall Van Dyk on Oct 29, 2003 | Reply
I would be a little more prudent in your choice of words when saying that industry is being hogtied by radical enviro groups. Also, you say that such groups ideals arent accepted by the general public. Well, actually when the Northern Plains Resource council got the state to accept numeric standards on coal bed methan wastewater in terms of sodium and salinity, a poll by the Billings Gazette showed that two out of three Montanans supported the standars.
You also make the statement that the state requires environmental impact statements and environmental assessments. Actually, the state didnt require them with the advent of CBM developments in MT. It was not until these groups that you tlak so badly about took tha agencies to court reminding them they had to follow NEPA and they werent doing their job.
You say industry is in compience with the law. Did you hear about the U.S Supreme Court’s decision last week to deny appeal by Fidelity Exploration. For a long period of time indusrty was discharging wastewater toxic to plants directly into the river without any kind of discharge permit (MPDES). THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW. Now that the Supreme Court has denied appeal, they now and forever more must have such permits.
A state which is projected to have:
-9,000 miles of new roads
-28,000 miles of new power lines and pipelines
-4,000 high sodium wastewater imoundmnets
-70,000 acres of disturbed land
-4.7 million acres of impacted wildlife habitat
-600 foot aquifer drain across the Powder River
basin, isnt the treasure state I was born & raised in.
Let’s Develop CBM, but do it responsibly. The treasure state should consist of rich natural resources. However, viable family farms and ranches still are vital to this state’s economy.
They should be able to irrigate with clean water and not have their multi-generation farms put out by water depletion and toxic irrigation water. Sorry to shoot holes in you GMan, but you need to know the truth, and maybe even try speaking it.
By Rebecca on Oct 30, 2003 | Reply
RE: SuperDan’s comment that “there is clearly fat to trim in the Montana University System. Administrators at UM and MSU are making 110-150,000 dollars a year. (Look it up, its public record) When questioned about their pay, they claim they need to offer competitive rates, compared to other states.”
AMEN, brother. I work for one of the largest universities in California, in an area (San Diego) that has a pretty steep cost of living. I find it pretty darned strange that an administrator or upper-level staffer at MSU Billings would be paid the same as one working at SDSU, where the CofL is probably more than double that of anywhere in MT save Missoula or Bozeman.
The “we need to pay this much to attract top-shelf personnnel” is also a load of horsesh*t of the first magnitude.
By Paul on Oct 30, 2003 | Reply
Kendall,
Thank you for the insightful and informative post.
And while we’re on the subject: GMan, if you took the time to actually research the facts surrounding the coal bed methane opinion issued by the 9th Circuit, rather than mindlessly spewing anti-environmentalist rhetoric, you will find that the groups who brought the suit or filed briefs on its behalf at the Supreme Court included the Tongue River Waters Users Association and members of the Tongue and Yellowstone Irrigation District. These people are farmers and ranchers (a pretty conservative group to begin with) who had the audacity to not want contaminated water from coal bed methane wells introduced on their grazing land. So much for the “radical environmentalist” theory.
Furthermore, the coal bed methane industry brought the appeal after losing at the 9th, in an effort to get CBM waste water (which by its own expert’s admission is unfit for irrigation without treatment) unregulated by the Federal Clean Water Act. Keep in mind that being regulated does not mean they can’t discharge it - only that it must be discharged in conformance with standards to protect water quality. So the suit was not about shutting down the industry (as their propaganda leads people to believe) but rather about requiring CBM discharges to be regulated like every other industrial pollutant.
By Paul on Oct 30, 2003 | Reply
Oh, and Craig:
I’d sure appreciate hearing your comments on Brian Schweitzer’s 2nd post (and the same goes for everyone else too). Thanks for the email, by the way, I’m glad we got that straightened out
By mtpolitics on Oct 30, 2003 | Reply
Paul–
There was nothing really to straighten out.
Only my lapse of commenting savvy.
I’ll have some comments to be sure, but I want to at least make sure other folks get a crack at it!
By superdan on Oct 30, 2003 | Reply
So Gman,
If Wyoming and South Dakota have such “business friendly” tax structures, why are they in the bottom of the economic barrel right along side Montana???????? Wyoming is not “filling it’s coffers” They are destroying their land forever. There is a reason coal bed methane has been hampered for years. It is dangerous and economically insane. Why would we use such an expensive, environmentally unfriendly method of extraction, when it is currently available all over the world in mass quantities. Free market, remember? He who has the most and sells it the cheapest sells it to the ones that want it bad enough. Of all the natural resources we could extract in Montana, that one makes the least sense. Why not look at trees again? At least they renew themselves. Mining is a lost cause. It is non-renewable and we end up destroying this state everytime we do it. Look at our history. Is it worth creating a few jobs and making a handful of people into millionaires in trade for environmental disasters (Anaconda, Butte, the list goes on forever) that our children and grandchildren will pay for? I don’t think so. This state has been bent over a barrel to many times by mining interests. I would hope that we aren’t stupid enough to let it happen again, but alas, our greed knows no bounds.
By Ghost Dog on Nov 1, 2003 | Reply
If this is the “Treasure State” then where did the treasure go? Montana has been nothing more than a colony to exploit by out of staters since the buffalo were killed off.
By Joan on Mar 27, 2004 | Reply
Good job Craig. Keep asking questions. Ask Brian Schweitzer if he is in favor of a sales tax if it is incorporated with the property and income tax. A three legged balanced tax is the only fair tax. We cannot educate our children, create jobs, keep up our infastructure and offer current services without an increase in revenue.
By Joan on Mar 27, 2004 | Reply
As an addition to my previous comment: I agree with eliminating waste in our government, but think we still need the 3 legged tax structure.