The Bobcat Nation

I find it funny that most rural states and rural voters will vote Republican, and so what does that get them this year? Cuts in their kids education, cuts in their health care, and transportation expenses to name a few;

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006 ... 596803.txt

The cuts are sad, but in a way I guess most rural voters get what they voted for huh?

If you want to read an interesting book that hypothesizes as to why poorer, more rural areas have switched from being Democrat strongholds to Republican strongholds, you should read "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank. I don't agree with everything he says by a long shot, but he has an interesting set of theories that are plausible.

And no, it has nothing to do with race or anything reactionary like that.

Thanks Brad, I'll check it out.

I don't think that it's just a Republican problem.

Environmentalists, which are predominately Democrat, have done more economic damage to western MT than any cut in health care or education. And if you don't have a local tax base to make up the difference, you're really screwed.

ChiOCat wrote:Environmentalists, which are predominately Democrat, have done more economic damage to western MT than any cut in health care or education. And if you don't have a local tax base to make up the difference, you're really screwed.

I'm not an environmentalist by any means (my client base consists almost entirely of energy companies), but can you honestly say that environmentalists have done any actual damage to Montana? With the exception of Schweitzer winning the last election, it seems to me that Republicans have pretty much been running the state since roughly the mid-80's.

The environmentalists are vocal, but do they have any real power? There is a toxic lake in the middle of my hometown (Butte), and no one in power really seems to care; the mining industry in Butte was closed due chiefly to market forces, not environmental concerns. Has growth in other industries been slowed due to environmental concerns? (I'm asking sincerely, by the way; I'm not trying to argue with you -- I'm not as in touch with local politics as I was when I lived there, but my sense has always been that the environmental lobby, while vocal, doesn't have much real power in Montana.)

--GL

ChiOCat wrote:I don't think that it's just a Republican problem.

Environmentalists, which are predominately Democrat, have done more economic damage to western MT than any cut in health care or education. And if you don't have a local tax base to make up the difference, you're really screwed.

So wait...enviromentalists wrote thu Bush budget? Thats news!

No one can really argue the point that this budget cuts a lot of money that supports vital programs, and rural communities are going to be hit because of this.

All you have to do is look at Wyoming if you don't think environmentalism has a lot of power in this state.

Our state constitution is what gives environmentalist, conservationist etc. so much power.

Right or wrong I wont say.

ReMax, do you really not get Chio's argument or are you or are you just dusting off your high school debating skills.

Remax,Gl and BAC

I wonder how much Logging/Mining/and ext we lost due to being protested in the state of montanas court system, therefore being held up = loss of jobs

Ponycat wrote:All you have to do is look at Wyoming if you don't think environmentalism has a lot of power in this state.

Our state constitution is what gives environmentalist, conservationist etc. so much power.

How, though? It's easy to just say "Wyoming has industry, Montana doesn't...ergo, it must be the environmentalists' fault," but unless that's really the reason why Montana's economy is as weak as it is, it isn't very helpful.

As I said earlier, Republicans have essentially been running Montana for most of the past fifteen years -- more than enough time to implement a pro-industry legislative agenda. And yet, very little new industry has been attracted to Montana in that time, especially in comparison with other areas (e.g., Boise).

You say that "our state constitution" gives environmentalists power -- how does that work, exactly? Environmentalists haven't been in control of the (Republican) legislature or the governorship for most of the past fifteen years; without legislative clout, what power do they really have, other than the ability to write letters to the editor and hold protests?

Again, I don't sympathize with environmentalists (not as a general proposition, anyway). I'm still not convinced that the environmentalists are the problem, though, as opposed to simple market forces being the primary reason for Montana's economic woes.

--GL

Hell's Bells wrote:Remax,Gl and BAC

I wonder how much Logging/Mining/and ext we lost due to being protested in the state of montanas court system, therefore being held up = loss of jobs

How much of the mining was held up because the local residents didn't want it? They look at Butte and remember that the jobs are temporary, but the damage is permanent. Other good examples are at Kendall Mine outside of Lewistown and the mine up in the Little Rockies. Bankrupt mining companies that are long gone, and a mountain that is largely gone as well ... and a few neighbors who claim that their groundwater not has arsenic in it.

I'm not a fan of mining in general, especially if it is mining materials such as gold that are strictly vanity metals (for the most part).

If MT wants to be more than a site of temporary exploitation by people who will take the money and run (and not invest in the local economy going-forward), it has to look to industries beyond those such as mining. The residents of the state have even voted against mining-friendly initiatives.

Bay Area Cat wrote:If you want to read an interesting book that hypothesizes as to why poorer, more rural areas have switched from being Democrat strongholds to Republican strongholds, you should read "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank. I don't agree with everything he says by a long shot, but he has an interesting set of theories that are plausible.

And no, it has nothing to do with race or anything reactionary like that.

I read this book for a class and it was interesting, but many things were hard to agree with on that one. It does have some good ideas why this "conservative ascendancy" happened.

It seems like the rural voters aren't really much of a concern. The education cuts are disturbing, to say the least. It isn't good either that the government won't subsidize something like Amtrak when so many airlines are bankrupt.

Hell's Bells wrote:I wonder how much Logging/Mining/and ext we lost due to being protested in the state of montanas court system, therefore being held up = loss of jobs

Difficult to say, HB. As I mentioned in an earlier post, though, the mining industry in Butte was shut down strictly because of market forces (i.e., the volatility of the price of copper and the rising cost of energy made it unprofitable much of the time). I'm not as knowledgeable about the timber industry, but common sense and fundamental economics tells me that if there were a profit to be made, firms would find a way to make it. If truly frivolous lawsuits by environmental groups are causing otherwise productive ventures to fail, then of course that problem should be addressed, but I have a difficult time believing that other economic factors don't play a far greater role.

I should point out that there are many circumstances where environmental pressure is making things difficult, especially in such matters as Federal designation of tracts of land (against the wishes of the locals) as wilderness or monument areas (including private land), thus limiting even non-destructive economic uses of the land. The application of the endangered species act in less-than-straight-foward ways is also a concern. These are particularly problems for the ag industry in the state.

Re/Max Griz wrote:I find it funny that most rural states and rural voters will vote Republican, and so what does that get them this year? Cuts in their kids education, cuts in their health care, and transportation expenses to name a few;

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006 ... 596803.txt

The cuts are sad, but in a way I guess most rural voters get what they voted for huh?

Re/Max,
What exactly is your point? As a conservative living in a rural state, I appluad Bush for making these cuts. It is exactly why I voted for him. Liberals want and think government has to take care of too many things. The government is so bloated it's nice to see Bush finally making some cuts in spending, however with the way Washington works, these are probably just cuts in the projected growth rate, not real actual cuts.

Grizlaw wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:I wonder how much Logging/Mining/and ext we lost due to being protested in the state of montanas court system, therefore being held up = loss of jobs

Difficult to say, HB. As I mentioned in an earlier post, though, the mining industry in Butte was shut down strictly because of market forces (i.e., the volatility of the price of copper and the rising cost of energy made it unprofitable much of the time). I'm not as knowledgeable about the timber industry, but common sense and fundamental economics tells me that if there were a profit to be made, firms would find a way to make it. If truly frivolous lawsuits by environmental groups are causing otherwise productive ventures to fail, then of course that problem should be addressed, but I have a difficult time believing that other economic factors don't play a far greater role.

yeah i agree with you about market forces and the problem with Butte's mining industry. however, for the last about 20 years, enviromental protestors have been protesting through the courts a good number of "clear cuts"

Grizlaw wrote:
How, though? It's easy to just say "Wyoming has industry, Montana doesn't...ergo, it must be the environmentalists' fault," but unless that's really the reason why Montana's economy is as weak as it is, it isn't very helpful.

As I said earlier, Republicans have essentially been running Montana for most of the past fifteen years -- more than enough time to implement a pro-industry legislative agenda. And yet, very little new industry has been attracted to Montana in that time, especially in comparison with other areas (e.g., Boise).

You say that "our state constitution" gives environmentalists power -- how does that work, exactly? Environmentalists haven't been in control of the (Republican) legislature or the governorship for most of the past fifteen years; without legislative clout, what power do they really have, other than the ability to write letters to the editor and hold protests?

Again, I don't sympathize with environmentalists (not as a general proposition, anyway). I'm still not convinced that the environmentalists are the problem, though, as opposed to simple market forces being the primary reason for Montana's economic woes.

--GL

Republicans have been in power in everything but the State Supreme Court, which no one can honeslty argue is anything but left of center.

The Montana Constitution states that all "Montanans are entitled to a clean and healthy environment." Not real specific. This is obviously debatable as to what that means and with a more liberal leaning court its much easier to stop something someone would precieve as bad for the environment based on that. Numerous MT Supreme COurt decisions have bee based on that on line in the constitution, and it wasn't for the benifit of the industry. If you like I could explain how easy it is to ammend the state constitution.

Look at coal bed methane and how much easier it is to get a permit in Wyoming compared to MT. (probably a good thing) Same with mining laws, and yes the major "anti-mining bill" was passed by the people but the courts affected it long before the cianide law was passed.

The coal tax which is a good thing most definately stops smaller coal mines from opening. This tax is the highest in the nation and the author of the bill admits that he wrote it with the end of coal mining in MOntana in mind.

Timber Salvage, is another area where MT courts and land board have made it much harder compered to surrounding states.

Also the R's have been in power in the governors office, but they have been the minority on the land board every year the last 20.

I'm not saying more safeguards are bad but don't tell me MOntana's economy which has been historically extractive hasn't been effected negatively by tougher environmental laws.

Market forces would say that Timber is in very high demand but for some reason most the saw mills in the state are closing. Are you telling me that market forces wouldn't encourage more coal mining and coal fired energy plants. I could probably buy the market forces closing copper mines and maybe gold mines but the rest...come on.

HB: Maybe clear cuts aren't such a good idea to begin with? Considering that we are resorting to screwing Canada over with uber-high lumber tariffs, maybe we just aren't that competitive on a free market basis when it comes to timber production in the first place. Some thinning here and there is a good thing from a forest management perspective, but I have never read much about the positive impact of clear-cutting. Please pass a link along if you have something to educate us with on that topic, though.

Bay Area Cat wrote:HB: Maybe clear cuts aren't such a good idea to begin with? Considering that we are resorting to screwing Canada over with uber-high lumber tariffs, maybe we just aren't that competitive on a free market basis when it comes to timber production in the first place. Some thinning here and there is a good thing from a forest management perspective, but I have never read much about the positive impact of clear-cutting. Please pass a link along if you have something to educate us with on that topic, though.

Of course clear cutting isn't a very good idea, but it is better than seeing mismanaged forests going up in smoke, like they did 2 and 3 years ago. That REALLY ends up hurting us in the long-run (wasted money going towards fighting fires, and money that could have been obtained from logging wafting away on the breeze).

I'm sure you know that most of the forests in this county are in the same preidicament: Too much old-growth and downed timber = prime fuel for forest fires. Why? Because environmentalists push for "letting nature take it's course." That is all well and good, but in a country where people are pushing further and further into the wilderness (take a look at Big Sky, Missoula, Bozeman, et. al.), it is not a viable approach. Something must be done about the sad state of our National Forests. I'm not suggesting clear-cutting, rather a good forest thinning approach, at least in the more populated areas.

Re/Max Griz wrote:

ChiOCat wrote:I don't think that it's just a Republican problem.

Environmentalists, which are predominately Democrat, have done more economic damage to western MT than any cut in health care or education. And if you don't have a local tax base to make up the difference, you're really screwed.

So wait...enviromentalists wrote thu Bush budget? Thats news!

Yes. That's exactly what I meant.

ChiOCat wrote:

Re/Max Griz wrote:

ChiOCat wrote:I don't think that it's just a Republican problem.

Environmentalists, which are predominately Democrat, have done more economic damage to western MT than any cut in health care or education. And if you don't have a local tax base to make up the difference, you're really screwed.

So wait...enviromentalists wrote thu Bush budget? Thats news!

Yes. That's exactly what I meant.

That is one of the best (concise but effective) responses I have read in a long time. I did literally LOL (just had to prove that I can hang with the IM crowd).