The Clean Water Restoration Act issue flared up again yesterday as Congressman Rehberg took Gov Schweitzer to task for his support of a bill that would have drastic impacts on Montana water rights.

The Gov has tried to "clarify" (read: reverse) his position on the Act by releasing a litany of excerpts from his verbal testimony before the US House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, and the pro-Schweitzer blogs have been working overtime trying to create some cover fire for their boss.

But the facts make it pretty clear.  In his submitted testimony (which has been widely touted by environmental groups) Schweitzer makes it clear that he supports the legislation.  Further, Schweitzer wrote a letter to Congressman Rehberg last year requesting that he cosponsor it.

Sorry, but the "clarification" isn't fooling anyone.  What the Gov should do is recant his position and join the growing opposition to the legislation.

Gov Schweitzer's tendency to stretch the truth is well know, but now he's stretching time too.  The Trib has a great story today on the ongoing investigation into the apparently-illegal public service announcement the Gov did for "National Ag Month."  The trouble is, there is no "National Ag Month."  There's a National Ag Day, and a National Ag Week, but no such thing as National Ag Month.

What's worse, this stretch of the imagination (and time) wasn't a mistake--Schwetizer intentionally invented National Ag Month in order to be able to run the illegal PSA for a longer period of time!  Here's an excerpt of the email that the Schweitzer comm team sent along to radio stations with the mp3 file attached: "National Ag Day is the first day of spring.  We broadened the concept a little to allow for longer air time."

It's pretty obvious from that statement alone Schweitzer wanted maximum exposure from these PSA's, and not maximum exposure for a fictitious appreciation month.  If that doesn't violate the PSA moratorium for elected officials running for office, we don't know what would.

Last week, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study of the economic impacts of the cap and trade system envisioned in the Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation.  Even in the more conservative estimations, America (and Montana) will see a massive loss of jobs and wealth if Lieberman-Warner becomes law.

We read a couple of weeks ago about Republicans on the Environmental Quality Council questioning climate change science, but now it seems that the Schweitzer administration has it's collective head deeply embedded in the sand as well in their outright rejection of a scientifically sound economic study.  Here's what Schweitzer senior advisor Eric Stern had to say about the study

"They've been denying climate change is happening for so long, and now they're trying anything they can to scare people.  This is a petroleum industry front group that is literally like a cigarette company promoting a study that says smoking is good for you."

The National Association of Manufacturers took umbrage at Mr. Stern's harsh words, likening his response to "something a snot-nosed kid would say, to come back with an insult instead of acknowledging legitimate concerns."

The NAM blog post went on to rightly point out that this was an especially troubling position from the Schweitzer administration because Montana's potential to be an energy producing state and the fact that "Gov. Brian Schweitzer fancies himself an advocate of coal."  News to NAM: The Gov. fancies himself a lot of things, very few of which have a basis in reality.

The model (called the National Energy Modeling System, or NEMS) used for the study at the center of this controversy is not an invention by NAM or ACCF, but was developed by the US Energy Information System.  Two datasets were inputted, one that estimated a "high cost scenario" and the other a "low cost scenario." The study can be accessed here.

Even the low-cost scenario has some pretty dire predictions for Montana.  It estimates that by 2030 we'd lose between 11,000 and 15,000 jobs; lose between $1.35 billion and $1.59 billion in gross state product; and would cost each Montana household between $2,918 and $5,321 annually. 

Those aren't fun numbers, especially for a governor who just spent a few months and a lot of money to develop 54 recommendations about climate change (one of which was to impose a cap and trade system in Montana).  Most of those recommendations will have a negative economic impact on Montana, but conveniently, only a cursory economic analysis was done by the Governor's Climate Change Advisory Committee.  It's no wonder the Gov is a little defensive when presented with an economic analysis that comes out so negative for his agenda.

So while the Montana media gets all wound up about a few Republican legislators even raising the prospect that the science behind climate change might be a little suspect, the real story about the unknown economic impacts gets overlooked.  Not to mention that when Republicans blow off scientific evidence it makes big headlines, but when Gov Schweitzer does it, there's barely a splash.

Our advice to Republican legislators on the EQC--stop quibbling about whether or not climate change is man-made, and start pointing out the enormous cost (in both dollars and jobs) of the plan Governor Schweiter's committee has laid out.

So another former lawmaker goes to work in the Schweitzer administration - makes you wonder how independent our legislature is from the executive branch.  We found these statements by the Gov interesting:

"It's a question of trust.  The people of Montana deserve to know who their public officials are working for in Helena. Legislators and state officials must be held accountable." - Brian Schweitzer quoted in the Billings Gazette, 7/15/04 regarding ethics legislation he proposed during his 2004 campaign for governor that would have prohibited former elected officials from becoming private-sector lobbyists.

"What this one will do, it will absolutely pour cement in the revolving door."  Brian Schweitzer quoted in the Billings Gazette, 2/14/06, regarding a ballot measure to restrict legislators from becoming private-sector lobbyists.

While becoming a lobbyist and going to work for the administration are not exactly the same thing, the underlying principle of the law/initiative that Schweitzer wanted to pass when he made those statements applies to both situations: the promise of personal gain through employment can corrupt a legislator's judgement, or at the very least lead to the appearance of corruption.  And after observing how the Schweitzer administration operates, it's not hard to imagine that any of the several lawmakers who have gone on to work for the administration would not be in their present posts had they crossed BS during thier legislative days - which is a lesson that other Democrat legislators are sure to take note of.

Legislative Democrats have already been exposed by a vote-trading scandal during the Schweitzer administration, so it wouldn't take too much of a stretch to imagine that a little quid quo pro could potentially take place between votes and employment promises.  Keeping your governor happy is one thing; compromising your integrity is quite another.

A good portion of the mainstream still refuses to acknowledge the disconnect between Gov. Schweitzer's pro-energy rhetoric and the behind-the-scenes anti-development actions being taken by his administration.  As a reminder, this is the same administration that last two year promulgated some of the strictest emission standards in the country; killed HB 610 , which would have made it easier to build new power plants in Montana; and implemented new mandates for the state electricity portfolio that have driven up the price of electricity.

And now the Schweitzer administration's Board of Environmental Review is making overtures that they will implement new emission standards on CO2 - and do it without legislative approval.  The Billings Gazette reported on 1/12, "Board  (of Environmental Review) members said they may have the authority to create new CO2 regulations for the state, but that the law doesn't allow the state to impose them retroactively on this plant at this time."

With all the Schweitzer anti-development roadblocks that are already in place, and additional ones on the horizon, it's no wonder that Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota are all seeing more energy development than Montana. 

People have been decrying Schweitzer's big talk, no action on energy for most of his administration - but that's not entirely accurate.  Schweitzer is taking action on energy development - it's just that it's all negative action designed to put up new roadblocks to development.

Montana's greatest asset is the enormous energy reserves we have in our state, and in particular coal.  But while our neighboring states are cashing in on cutting-edge coal development technologies (like gasification, liquefaction, and cleaner-burning power plants), Montana is getting left behind due to the short-sighted policies of Governor Schweitzer.
 

The Montana Republican Party today released information on two construction liens filed by two contractors this month against Brian and Nancy Schweitzer.  The liens are for $21,000 in work completed in August on the couple's Georgetown Lake retreat.  Click here to see the lien documents. 

No doubt, when the Montana media gets their mitts on this story, Schweitzer will be made to look the victim against unscrupulous contractors and he'll become a hero among his blue-collar, Georgetown Lake neighbors.

It's another chapter in the sad chronicle of Montana losing out on energy development.  Last week the Bismarck Tribune reported that Great Northern Power Development will build a coal gasification plant near South Heart, North Dakota.  The project is expected to bring 200 new jobs.  South Heart is just 50 miles from the Monana border.

Meanwhile Montana has not a single coal gasification or liquefaction project on the drawing board.  Keep on talking, Governor Schweitzer.

The Montana Department of Revenue put out a press release yesterday that indicates a new tax on Internet access is in the works and could be enacted without legislation.

There has been a federal moratorium on Internet taxation for a number of years, but that moratorium is due to expire on November 1.  Revenue Director Dan Bucks made it clear in the press release that Montana will not begin taxing Internet access on November 1 because he wants to wait to see if Congress renews the moratorium.  "He said it would be unwise for the department to use resources to collect a tax that may need to be refunded at a later date."

However, the release went on to reveal that if Congress adjourns next year without extending the Internet taxation moratorium, Bucks will order the Montana telecommunications excise tax be applied to Internet access.

The worst part of this is that Schweitzer can institute this new tax without legislative approval.  He's done this before - last year he increased taxes on cell phones, which legislative Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to reverse.

Not only is this is slap in the face of the democratic process,  but it's totally unnecessary at this time of record revenue surpluses.  The state has more money than it can spend and we're going to put new taxes on important things like the Internet?  What's wrong with this administration?

This week's Revenue and Transportation Interim Committee (RATIC) was dominated by a bombshell memo written by the legislature Principal Fiscal Analyst Terry Johnson (see page 2, under Issues, #2 for the good stuff).  According to Johnson, the administration did not use "generally accepted accounting principles" to determine state revenues for this fiscal year - resulting in an over-estimate of $69 million.  This is significant because without that extra $69 million, the state would not have met the "trigger" contained in HB 9 which designated excess revenue for additional property tax rebates.  You may recall the extra $140 rebates the administration announced earlier this year. 

The significance here, according to the Johnson memo, is that those extra rebates would not have materialized had the administration followed the law in estimating revenue.  In other words, they cooked the books.

We can't complain much.  Giving back excess tax revenue is a good thing.  However, it just underscores the point that we should not be using complicated formulas and triggers to accomplish tax relief - if tax revenues are more than the state needs, we should simply be cutting tax rates to prevent the excess payments in the first place.

The troubling part of this story is the fact that the administration is playing fast and loose with the law.  Where else are they cutting corners and cooking books?  Dishonest, unethical, and underhanded political manipulation has no place in the governor's office, even if it does lead to laudable ends.

See Montana Main Street for more information. 

Pay for Montana university faculty has fallen from 41st to 45th in the nation during Brian Schweitzer's term as governor, according to MEA-MFT union official Erik Burke.  Burke, whose union represents most of the faculty statewide, referred to the pay disparity as a "dirty little secret" in a Bozeman Daily Chronicle story today.

For Schweitzer, who just can't help but constantly compare himself to Governor Judy Martz, this must come as troubling news indeed.