Montana just garnered the top spot in business climate rankings. Check it out yourself at the Business Facilities Magazine's website http://www.businessfacilities.com/bf_07_07_cover1a.php

Business Facilities does not include financial incentives in its calculations, but rather GDP, business tax climate index, Fortune 500 firms, new employer firms,job growth, and roadway measurings.

These new business climate rankings are more good news for Governor Schweitzer's economic development efforts. I hope you will be objective and post this on your blog.

Viola,

Thanks for pointing this out and keeping us honest, but if you're putting more stock in Business Facilities Magazine than you are in Forbes (where Montana dropped to 42nd this year in their annual business climate rankings) you need to lay off the dope. I agree that all publications out there have some value, but some have more value than others.

Personally, I think data is more valuable from economic and financial publications, like Forbes; rather than a niche magazine like BF. But you choose to read what you wish.

I'd also point out that the Montana Chamber of Commerce gave Gov. Schweitzer a 12/100 score on his performance during the last legislative session. I think some of the anti-business environmental groups would have scored him much higher on his performance. Just another example of how different perspectives can yield opposing judgments of the same action. In this example I'm going to side with the Chamber and I'm sure you would side with some of those enviro groups.

So no, we won't be referencing the study by Business Facilities Magazine as long as there are more credible studies to cite. If BF Magazine is all the gov has to hang his hat on, we're all in trouble.

Carter,

I understand that Business Facilities Magazine is where many economic developers and site selectors look for info, so if it is a "niche" magazine, it is an important niche when it comes to company location decisions. Those folks will see Montana as #1 in Pro-Business Climate and will "get it." Even mtbusiness.com has the article posted -- let's all tout our state's good news!

Now on to business equipment taxes. Remember, during the 2007 Legislature, the Governor supported raising the BE tax threshold (those below it pay no business equipment taxes) from $20,000 to $50,000. That's just smart policy on Governor Schweitzer's part to help grow our small business economy. He also agreed to exempting all businesses for the first $60,000 of business equipment. On the other hand, the Republican infrastructure championed a rate reduction, which gives more money to Exxon, Conoco and other multi-national businesses.

What's important to point out is that rate reductions are not the best way to go. Witness the fact that the Montana Economic Developers Association supported the threshold raising and the exemption level also opposed reducing the rate. And, to top it off, even Governor Martz's administration said that we were "competitive" with the business equipment tax.

Montana small businesses and homeowners cannot afford to let multi-nationals walk away with profits without carrying their share of the property tax load. Just remember that the business equipment tax has already been reduced by 73% since 1989 (from 11% to 3%). Some people will continue to advocate eliminating the BE tax. But we need a balanced approach between tax levels that are competitive and providing needed services such as fire, police, streets, education, etc.

Let's give Governor Schweitzer credit for standing up for our small business economy, for homeowners and our communities. Thank you for posting my comments.

Viola,

I appreciate your optimism about our state, but I don't share your opinion that our economy is on the right track. Sure, things are going very well right now (and no, I'm not willing to give much of the credit to the Gov.), but for how long can construction and oil activity keep job growth strong? The natural resource industries that have historically been the backbone of the Montana economy are being decimated and we're losing out on opportunities to be a leading state in alternate energy development. Don't stick your head in the sand and ignore the economic realities around us just because one small magazine ranks Montana well; you need to look at the entire picture.

You brought up the business equipment tax, so let's talk about that. You're correct that the Montana Economic Developer's Association supported the Gov's plan to increase the BET tax threshold - but all the other business and industry groups supported the alternate BET proposal sponsored by Republican Rep. Bob Lake.

The Schweitzer BET plan only increased the tax threshold to $50,000. By using a threshold, a business with $49,999 worth of business equipment would owe no tax whatsoever. But a business with $50,001 worth of business equipment would have to pay taxes on the entire $50,001. The original version of it also included obscure language that would force blood relatives to aggregate their total business equipment value together. For instance if a husband owned a farm with $40,000 in BE, his wife owned a beauty salon with $5,000 in BE, and thier son owned a factory across the state with $20,000 in BE, all of their equipment value would be calculated together and each individual would owe tax on $65,000 worth of equipment, even though individually they would be below the $50,000 threshold and their three businesses have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This was amended out of the Schweitzer bill, but the remaining $50,000 exemption was still not the best solution.

The Bob Lake plan would have exempted out the first $100,000 in business equipment for ALL businesses, and would have lowered the rate from 3% to 2%. This benefited small businesses the most, but it was also a positive for larger employers. Schweitzer opposed this plan and it was killed by the Senate Democrats. Your defense is that it would give a tax break to businesses like Conoco. Let's remember that the biggest corporations in Montana are also the biggest employers, and oftentimes offer the best jobs around. Exactly why is giving them a tax break a bad thing?

You assert that Gov. Martz said that Montana is "competitive" with business equipment tax. I would challenge you to back this up because I've never seen her say this. I strongly believe that if you asked Judy today if we need to keep the BET today with a $1 billion surplus, she'd be first in line to eliminate it.

The bottom line is that Montana is not considered a competitive tax climate by most business and industry organizations, and the Gov did nothing but try to make things even worse. Let's have a little objectivity here and judge things for what they are instead of blindly following the Schweitzer talking points.