No headline

Eye-opening session for new legislator

As a freshman legislator at the 65th Montana legislative session, I learned a great deal about state politics. It was a crash course in the legislative process but also on how “insider politics” are played. To my surprise there were some unexpected positives and negatives.

As expected, the Democrat and Republican parties have very opposite ideologies, yet there were still common goals we all agreed on. One example is suicide prevention. Montana has the third highest suicide rate per capita in the nation. Legislators from both sides of the aisle wanted to address the problem. The difference came in proposed solutions by each party. Democrats continually looked at government or more money to solve the problem. I, as a Republican, believe when government creates an environment where each individual has the freedom to thrive, they will, and consequently will be less likely to commit suicide. It became then a matter of debate on which road to take to achieve the outcome we all wanted. It was positive to have some shared goals.

A negative I didn’t expect to see was the coercion of those in leadership by individual legislators.

I believe that an idea should live or die by its merits. There were many times I had to present an idea to the whole House to explain and convince members of both parties that it was a good idea for Montana. That is what I expected state politics to be. Unfortunately, there were members of the Republican caucus that had to create “deals” to elevate their personal agenda above the rest. Rep. Frank Garner, HD 7, and Rep. Rob Cook, HD 18, along with a handful of compromising Republicans, went to House leadership last December and threatened to side with the Democrats if leadership did not give them politically what they wanted (committee assignments and support for personal bills for example). This gave the Democrat agenda the majority in multiple instances.

I have had conversations with both Rep. Garner and Rep. Cook and they both have a good sense of humor and are personable. However, I do not understand anyone, either a Democrat or a Republican, that would throw their own caucus under the bus to get their way. Who does that? Why would they not let their ideas stand on their own and see if the rest of the legislators agree? Politicians do not have the best reputation in the eye of the public. Scandals, dishonesty, and a lack of transparency have riddled the history of politics at all levels. To see any politician use the Republican Party platform to get elected, yet legislate against the party goals for a personal agenda is disappointing. This is your state government. You deserve to know why after this session you will be paying more taxes. There should not be back-room deals to create law. It should be a transparent process. Sharing the insider politics is part of that transparency. In my mind all policy should be put on the table for the public to see. After all, once again, this is your government, and it will succeed only with an informed electorate. —Matt Regier, Kalispell Republican, HD 4

Defending the water compact

In my letter of resignation from the Flathead Joint Board of Control that was reported in “Resignation signals ongoing rift within joint board,” on March 16 by Sam Wilson, I stated the following:

“The current FJBC majority continues to fight the water compact without having informed itself, let alone irrigators, about the risks, costs and complex procedures associated with the alternative to the compact — Montana Water Court adjudication.”

Johanna Clark, the FJBC executive director is quoted as disputing my claim and said the FJBC had selected a hydrologist to develop a response to the Montana Water Court mandated technical examination of the FJBC’s 146 water right claims by Montana DNRC. But as of the end of April, the search for a hydrologist continues. That search should have begun immediately after the Joint Board of Control received the DNRC’s technical examination letter last July.

The DNRC examination only addresses technical hydrological issues. Of greater concern is the failure of the FJBC to begin addressing the many legal issues that eventually would need to be resolved in the Water Court if the compact fails. For example, two important legal questions concern whether the FJBC has the legal authority to own project water rights and the relative legal standing of project water claimed by individual irrigators.

The Joint Board of Control is not alone in failing to inform irrigators, and the public at large, about the costs and challenges of Montana Water Court adjudication. I have yet to find a compact opponent, including for example the outspoken critic Verdell Jackson, willing or able to explain why Water Court adjudication would provide more water with greater security than provided under the compact. —Dick Erb, Moiese

Tariff on Canada makes sense

Montanans have been remembered. The Canadian lumber industry is no longer flooding our state with cheap products subsidized by a socialized government. More jobs, and more freedom for Democrat and Republican workers alike will benefit from the president’s recent decision. Much more money and opportunity for many Montana industries will emerge because of President Trump’s decision to make Canada pay a 20 percent tariff.

Sound cruel? Heartless? Unfriendly? Montana’s economy in the lumber industry will blossom and provide more jobs in all areas of the state. We had been ignored by Obama for eight years because we only held a population of 1 million people, mostly conservative.

The powerful Sen. Tester recently followed the party line of the DNC by condemning Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, out of blind loyalty to Sen. Schumer in Washington, D.C., against his own best judgment. So, why re-elect him if he’s loyal to Sen. Schumer and not Montana? —Mike Donohue, Kalispell

Playground antics in D.C.?

I will try and write the following opinion with as much of a nonpartisan approach as possible. It has been very clear for the past eight years, if not longer, that our congressmen and women are more concerned with following their monetary donors, re-election efforts and childish pride then working for their constituents — we the people.

Our children are taught that when conflicts happen, on the playground, classroom, play date, sports practice, etc., that they try and resolve their differences through dialogue, empathy and understanding for their counterpart. Why is it that well-educated adults, i.e., our congressmen and women, are unwilling to play by the same rules? Their barriers are similar to our children — pride, selfishness and immaturity. Maybe it’s time they all take a time-out, or have their allowances, paychecks, taken away until they learn to behave themselves.

The days of the Tip O’Neils, individuals who were willing and able to cross the aisles and negotiate for the good of the people, are gone. Who will be the first to cross the playground and make peace for the good of the whole, we the people?

I supported President Trump, not because I agreed with everything he has said, or his childish tweets. I supported him because he was not part of the constipated Washington machine. Who will step up and give our children the example they need about conflict resolution? —Clark Martin, West Glacier