Weeds in town an eyesore

To the editor,

Today as I was once again spraying weed killer and Roundup around the yard along with weeding my flower beds, I looked around and sighed.

Columbia Falls supposedly has a weed and junk vehicle ordinance but I look to the south to my neighbor, they have a lot for sale and a house on the next lot. The problem is that they both have knee- to waist-high weeds. The house has three junk vehicles parked there. Sigh.

I look to the west to my neighbor behind me. They have so much garbage in the back yard that it can't be mowed, so it has knee- to waist-high weeds. They also have three junk vehicles. Sigh.

I look across the street to the east and see a new apartment building. The "landscaped" berm has knee high weeds. But I have to remember that these are "privileged" weeds that get watered every night with an underground sprikler. Sigh.

I look to the north where there was supposed to be three houses built. That empty stretch between 4th Avenue West and 3rd Avenue West also has knee- to waist-high weeds. Sigh.

The city states it will mow these weeds and bill the landowners. I've been waiting two years to see that one. I guess that local law enforcement is too busy elsewhere (perhaps meeting their monthly citation "goal") to be bothered with citing these infractions.

So we will continue to try to maintain a nice-looking home and yard in the middle of a weed infested-junk vehicle slum.

Thanks, Columbia Falls, for following through on what you brag to the paper about. As usual, it's all brag, no fact.

Patti Neal

Columbia Falls

Montana waters in jeopardy

Montanans take our water very seriously. We've spent generations managing and protecting this most precious resource, and nearly everything in our state - from farming and ranching to tourism and recreation, depends on our management of our water. That's why I've been shocked and discouraged by Governor Brian Schweitzer's recent support of a bill that gives bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. all of the power to manage Montana's water.

In case you haven't followed this underreported story, some members of Congress, and even some folks in Helena, want to take away our ability to manage our own water in Montana and across the country. Currently the United States Congress is considering the Clean Water Restoration Act. This bill will drastically expand the power of the federal government and threatens Montana families and communities with an increased burden they should not be expected to bear.

Unfortunately, Governor Brian Schweitzer is among those who support this federal power-grab, despite all the problems it creates in Montana. He's taken the side of extreme environmental groups who contend that the federal government should apply the standards of the Clean Water Act to all waters in Montana, from our major rivers on down to stock ponds and irrigation ditches.

Don't get me wrong: The Clean Water Act has been a largely successful policy that has helped to restore and protect navigable waterways, and as a result, Montana and the rest of the country has benefited. But now, we face a crossroads, and the federal government is moving to take over regulation of all waters, and their inability to grasp the reality of water issues in our state could be devastating to Montanans.

Empowering a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat to regulate our water use in every home, field and business across the state is flat out dangerous. No two areas of our great nation are alike, and a one-size fits all approach will, no doubt, yield disastrous and unintended consequences. In addition, the Clean Water Restoration Act would expand the reach of federal agencies to a virtually limitless level, and it is a direct assault on the rights of states and municipalities to manage our own water resources. In effect, this bill grants the federal government the authority to step in and regulate all activities, public or private, that affect water. Decisions made locally would now potentially be subject to federal review. Common-sense practices that have been in place for decades around Montana might now require a permit from the federal government.

The Clean Water Restoration Act will also carry a heavy price for state and local governments. Montana may be required to adopt water quality standards to comply with this act, and would need to develop a system to monitor and report on the quality of those waters.

Governor Brian Schweitzer and the liberals in Congress support this measure as a way to protect our water - something the stewards of our lands have done for decades. But what the Governor won't mention is that this legislation puts additional risks and costs on our agricultural producers and landowners. Property owners are more likely to be sued, and basic changes could be held up in court simply because all Montana waters are now subject to federal review.

This policy would be a disaster for Montana. That's why I opposed this bill before congress. Montanans need to band together to prevent this terrible policy from taking root. Contact Governor Brian Schweitzer and urge him not to sell us up the river. We depend on our water, and we don't need federal bureaucrats to protect it for us.

Roy Brown is a candidate for governor.

Customers could be stuck with fees

Americans hold nearly $1 trillion in credit-card debt, according to data just released by the Federal Reserve. Now Congress wants to make that burden even heavier. Some misguided lawmakers are pushing legislation that would saddle consumers with fees that retailers don't want to pay.

Under the deceptively named "Credit Card Fair Fee Act," Congress would effectively fix the rates that merchants pay to accept credit cards. That'd be good news for retailers. But it would be disastrous for consumers, who could see the fees on everything from their credit cards to their checking accounts rise.

To see why congressional intervention would harm consumers, it's important to understand how credit- and debit-card transactions work.

When you swipe a card at the local store, the storeowner typically keeps just over 98 percent of the purchase price. The remaining 2 percent goes from the retailer's bank to the bank that issued your card, or perhaps your local bank or credit union. It's called an "interchange fee."

Why do retailers accept this cost?

For starters, credit card transactions are guaranteed and secure. Storeowners don't have to worry about a consumer's check bouncing, extending credit, or having huge sums of cash on hand.

Credit cards also reduce labor costs. Clerks don't have to waste time counting change or tabulating receipts. Transaction records are automatically stored on a computer system, making accounting a breeze.

And credit cards are popular with consumers. About 40 percent of all transactions are conducted using plastic.

Despite all the advantages of credit cards, storeowners would obviously prefer to avoid that 2 percent fee. So they've decided to put pressure on Congress to lower their costs.

Specifically, they've lobbied the government to give them a special anti-trust exemption. If such a law were passed, all the retailers could form a massive cartel.

Payment systems and retailers would be forced to negotiate for 90 days over interchange fees. If they did not come to an agreement, retailers could then collectively boycott an entire credit card network. In other words, consumers would be denied the ability to pay with their preferred method.

Retailers claim such "negotiation" is necessary to lower prices for shoppers, who supposedly pay higher prices at the checkout counter to offset interchange fees.

But that's a misleading argument. In truth, if retailers collude to negotiate lower interchange fees, consumers won't see any savings. Instead, retailers will simply pocket the difference.

Just look at what's happened in other countries. Australia recently capped interchange fees, just as the current congressional proposal would effectively do. The cap had no discernible impact on prices paid by consumers.

Not only would shoppers miss any savings, they could also be saddled with higher fees and lose some great perks.

With retailers getting a free ride courtesy of Uncle Sam, card-issuing banks would need to recoup their losses elsewhere — by either raising fees on credit-card owners or ditching carrots like frequent-flyer rewards. Shoppers could say goodbye to no-annual-fee cards.

That's exactly what happened in Australia. Consumers there now pay extra fees at the register when they use a card.

Ordinary banking customers would also suffer. Do you have a free checking account? If so, there's a good chance that it's partly subsidized by interchange fees on debit cards.

Banks make money on free checking accounts by pairing them with debit cards. If politicians render that arrangement unprofitable, banks will simply stop offering free checking. And you'd have to pay the bank to maintain an account.

Seniors and others who receive state benefits would suffer at the hands of this proposal too. More than a million people nationwide receive their Social Security and other benefits on prepaid cards. If retailers decide to boycott plastic, these vulnerable consumers would be unable to purchase necessary items like groceries or medication.

This measure would also hurt those without bank accounts. At low-wage jobs, it's increasingly popular for employers to issue paychecks on pre-paid debit cards. These "payroll cards" provide enormous benefits. They eliminate hefty check-cashing fees, reduce the need to carry cash, and offer employees the ability to make purchases just about anywhere.

It's understandable that Congress wants to help Americans in debt. But our politicians have completely misdiagnosed the problem — which isn't credit card companies, but people living beyond their means. Giving retailers more money through regulation of interchange fees won't solve this.

Allowing retailers to form a cartel is special-interest politics at its worst. And shifting fees from merchants to consumers will do nothing but drive shoppers further into debt. Simply put, there's nothing fair about the Credit Card Fair Fee Act.

James Terry is the Chief Public Advocate of the Consumers Rights League, a non-profit, non-partisan, educational organization dedicated to preserving consumer choice in the marketplace.