Big Sky Country in The Wall Street Journal.
October 12th, 2006 | by Walter Greenspan |According to an Op-Ed by Frank D. Miele, managing editor of the Kalispell, Mont. Daily Inter Lake, in today’s The Wall Street Journal, Montana’s Senate race gets ugly“.”
14 Responses to “Big Sky Country in The Wall Street Journal.”
By Jay on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Both campaigns seem to be spinning out of control and threaten to antagonize the voters. I for one would like to see both candidates answer direct questions on their records and why I should now vote for them. If I were invited to be a panelist at one of the Senate debates, I would ask the following questions of each candidate.
1. Question for State Senator Jon Tester ,.
In your 8 years in the state Senate Montana has had two significant funding and constitutional challenges that remain unanswered. Leaving aside the issue of education quality, Montana ’s pension problems rival, if not exceed, education quality for the support required by Montana taxpayers for many years.
While poor investment markets in 2001 through 2005 contributed to Montana’s pension deficit problems, it has been determined that the major factor causing the pension shortfall was pension benefit increases provided by the legislature in 1999 and again in 2001.
The legislative record indicates that Montana’s legislature failed to address the state’s pension problems during the past two sessions in violation of our state constitution to maintain actuarial soundness of state pensions aside from a $125m one-time cash infusion to pension funds made during a special legislative session late last year called by Governor Schweitzer.
New projections indicate the state’s pension shortfall is now estimated to be $1.34bn. representing a debt burden of nearly $1,500 per person in Montana that has been passed to future generations to resolve and pay for.
As a state senator you voted in 1999 and in 2001 to increase pension benefits without increasing contributions. In your leadership positions as Senate Minority Leader in 2003 and Senate President in 2005, you were aware of the state’s large and growing pension problems and that state pensions were actuarially unsound in violation of Montana ’s constitution.
Knowing what you know now, as you look back on your votes to increase the pension benefits in 1999 and again in 2001 would you consider them to be a mistake?
Why wasn’t anything done in the past two legislative sessions to address the state’s pension problems in compliance with Montana ’s constitution?
What lessons did you learn from this experience with state pensions that would qualify you at the National level in addressing the Nation’s indebtedness and the tax being passed on to future generations to similarly resolve and pay for?
2. Question for U.S. Senator Conrad Burns
Public support has grown throughout the country and in Montana for stronger ethics rules and regulations for elected officials and their staff. Several states, including Montana , have ballot initiatives to be decided this fall which are expected to receive significant voter support and approval.
In your 3 terms as U.S. Senator your office has had an undeniable history of many key staff members leaving your office to become lobbyists, or join lobbying firms, with some of them returning from their lobbying to join your office again. Staffers such as Leo Giacommetto, Will Brooke, Bob Arensberg, Mike Rawson, Ryan Thomas, Shawn Vassell and Mark Baker to name a few.
While Montana’s I-153 does not apply to a U.S. Senator, should you be elected to a 4th term would you set an example and commit to requiring your staff to sign a code of ethics that would include a prohibition on their becoming a lobbyist, or working for any lobbying firm in any capacity, within 24 months after departure from your staff?
Would you pledge yourself not to become a lobbyist, or work for any lobbying firm in any capacity, within 24 months should you lose this election or retire from the U.S. Senate anytime in the future?
Would you distance yourself and your office from Gage Consulting, the U.S. Asia Network, the U.S. – Taiwan Business Council, the Inland NW Space Alliance and other similar organizations to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?
By Gman on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Frank Miele is a great journalist. A diamond in the rough. Good work.
By touchstone on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Frank Miele is a great journalist. A diamond in the rough. Good work.
Ha, ha. I was thinking just the opposite. “What a hack,” I was thinking.
Calling for bi-partisanship is, of course, fool’s gold in today’s political climate. The GOP simply refuses to work with the Democratic party. That’s fine. They’re a majority. They don’t have to. But to blame Dems for not working across the aisle?
By Dani on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Any one else notice this:
“The tightening web (noose?) of the Internet, the cable news and the blogs on the body politic is a huge turnoff.”
I don’t feel like a hangman. Must only apply to Craig et al.
Jay-I particularly like #3. You probably know that quite a few big (and little) companies have very similar rules. It’s very important to avoid a conflict of interest- or conflict of future interest, as the case may be.
By Dani on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Sorry, I can’t count, Jay, I meant #2. The “3 terms” caught my eye, I guess.
By Gman on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
It isn’t just because of this particular op-ed that I state that he is a great journalist. He’s great because I agree with him!
By touchstone on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
It isn’t just because of this particular op-ed that I state that he is a great journalist. He’s great because I agree with him!
It’s easy to preach to the choir. Find me a writer who makes you reconsider your basic assumptions, and then we’ll talk!
By Shane C. Mason on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Find me a writer who makes you reconsider your basic assumptions, and then we’ll talk!
You are at his blog.
By DMerriman on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
What, they’re just now noticing?
By Craig on Oct 12, 2006 | Reply
Jay, how can you see us from way up there on your high horse?
By Jay on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
What high horse? I am just tired of the same old sound bites and drivel from the candidates.
I have believed Conrad Burns was ethically challenged since before he ran against Schweitzer, but did not appreciate how malignant his disease really was. I thought his staff, particularly Giaccometto, had their nose in the pig trough so far that even Conrad didn’t know how much they were on the take for. I have increasingly come to the conclusion that Conrad himself has both hands in our pockets and his nose deep in the trough himself.
Instead of asking Conrad time and time again as has happened in debate after debate if he supports ethics reform - which of course he says he does - why not ask him to declare, pledge and set an example similar to that being expressed by I-153?
With regard to Jon Tester, I have always liked him personally and used to like his views and opinions. However, I have grown increasingly disappointed with how he has become more concerned with how his connection to or his stand on an issue would be perceived by others. I don’t see him talking clearly and taking difficult stands on tough decisions.
The state’s pension problem is a mess and will only get bigger because of inaction taken. Jon voted twice to increase benefits without increasing contribution rates which is the main cause of the problems today. Jon has also known for more than two session that the pensions were actuarially unsound, the problem and financial consequences were getting ever larger, and that the legislature was bound to restore actuarial soundness by the state’s constitution. In his positions of leadership he did nothing. He says he balanced the state budget, was responsible for the state surplus and lived up to his responsibilities as a state legislator. In reality, school funding and pensions remain unaddressed, are both in violation of the state’s constitution, and the pension problem and debt has been passed to future generations to resolve. Jon is now promising to send some of the surplus back to MT homeowners against all reason given the state’s true financial position. If this is leadership and the example of the fiscal responsibility he is pledging to bring to the national level and the nations debt, then I am not buying it.
Unfortunately I can’t see myself now voting for either candidate. I will sit this one out.
Jay
By Craig on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Jay–
My apologies. I was referring to Touchstone (whose name is Jay) in comment #7, not you.
You make some very good points; most of which I can’t disagree with.
By Gman on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
Touchstone, I wouldn’t be blogging if I didn’t want to listen to people who might make me reconsider my “basic assumptions.” Nonetheless, I have my own beliefs (not assumptions, mind you) and I enjoy reading others that affirm those beliefs. Frank happens to be one of them. There aren’t many opinion-page editors in Montana who are willing to express the “conservative/libertarian” viewpoint. I’m sure most Montanans don’t even know that Frank is up for the Bastiat Prize for Journalism. Of course, that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if you don’t know who Frederic Bastiat was…
By Jay Stevens on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Jay, how can you see us from way up there on your high horse?
Ha ha! You didn’t think I was talking about me, did you?
Thanks for the honesty Gman. I like journalists who tout my views, too, but I appreciate the ones who make me think even better…