Our Montana philosopher-politician has emerged from his Outpost with his headlight on and his poison pen ready to dispatch enlightenment. He promises to “shine the light of truth” on “unknown campaigners.” Brad Molnar sorts through the candidates for the Montana Supreme Court.
He appears to be separating vegetables from fruits, placing them in liberal and conservative bins in his May 31 political cornucopia. In Molnar’s mixed potpourri, the candidates are either spoiled by special interests or are bruised by their prior decisions and endorsements. He laments that judges are lawyers and notes they are using campaign signs, billboards and clever slogans.
According to Molnar, “shadowy but known” movers (lawyers) are funding these judicial races. He doesn’t mention the contributions of other groups – energy, real estate and public officials. Maybe Molnar is arguing for a truly democratic idea: Take money out of elections.
Nonetheless, I must take strong exception with Mr. Molnar’s vitriolic comments regarding Montana Conservation Voters. He states MCV’s postcards explain, “Why the liberal is the anointed one and the conservative (or rank and file Republican) candidates were elected by morons, should be shunned by their mothers and should never receive another vote.”
This statement is patently false and reflects Molnar’s perverse view of MCV and Montana politics. Maybe Molnar can provide more information for his readers on anointment, morons and parenting. However, there is one piece of truth in Molnar’s diatribe: MCV is a bipartisan organization.
Last Updated on Saturday, 30 June 2012 11:20
On March 24, Billings participated in the Walk for Water, our region’s only World Water Day event. Over 250 members of our community walked and approximately 100 volunteered to raise awareness of the world water crisis and to learn ways we can act locally to reduce global impacts. This year’s theme, The World is Thirsty Because We are Hungry, focused on the impacts of agriculture on water usage.
On behalf of the World Water Day Event Committee, a special thank you to all of our amazing volunteers who have made this event possible! Thank you to our major event sponsors St. Vincent Healthcare Foundation, Energy Laboratories, HydroSolutions Inc., ECHO Geophysical Corporation and Spence Accounts.
To everyone who participated in this year’s event, you have made a difference! Awareness was great and the funds raised will benefit water projects in Uganda and Tanzania. To learn more about these projects, visit hope2onelife.org.
Last Updated on Friday, 22 June 2012 15:36
An empty promise is what Secretary of State Linda McCulloch is offering Montanans with her recycled election fraud website. It is a disservice to the people of Montana because it leads them to believe that there is redress of their grievances now available.
Currently, the secretary has neither the resources nor the authority to investigate or prosecute allegations of election fraud. The only action the secretary can take is to refer it to the appropriate county attorney.
Historically, referral has been pointless. Fifty complaints in the last election cycle resulted in no legal action being pursued. Hyping this “remedy” to election cheating creates two undesirable consequences. Law-abiding citizens are lulled into a false sense of security and those who would cheat the system realize they can do so with impunity.
The secretary bears no greater responsibility than to preserve the integrity of our elections. As secretary of state I requested the introduction of a bill that would have made willful election fraud a felony. Some argue that we do not currently have a crisis in our elections so we don’t need further vigilance. This mindset suggests that we don’t need to lock our houses because we’ve never been robbed.
Rather than recreating do-nothing web sites, the secretary should be working to put real teeth in our election laws. Good government in Montana depends on the preservation of fair elections. Instead of political posturing, we need tough enforcement and stiff penalties for those who violate our election laws.
Last Updated on Friday, 22 June 2012 15:35
I heard a pretty good slogan recently. “Obamacare is a hell of a lot better than ‘I don’t care.’” That pretty much says it all.
Those who oppose Obamacare simply don’t care. They have no plan. They don’t care what happens to the 30 million people who don’t have and cannot obtain health insurance. Their solution is, “Don’t get sick and if you do, file bankruptcy.” What a heartless, cruel, compassionless attitude.
If this is the attitude of a majority of the people in this country, we are about to lose the greatness of this country and do not deserve to lead the world anymore.
The Affordable Health Care Act is not perfect. In fact, it was not the first choice of most Democrats. Any form of a single-payer system would be much better. Medicare works amazingly well and could easily be expanded.
But since nearly all Republicans and many independents would not accept a single-payer system, Democrats went to the Republican plan adopted in Massachusetts by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. But then Republicans disavowed their own plan and forced Mitt Romney to do the same if he wanted the Republican nomination for president.
Last Updated on Friday, 22 June 2012 15:34
I have been reading Art Wittich’s Referendum 122 which prohibits any state or federal health insurance purchase mandate. And I have been following the arguments for and against. However, these arguments ignore the Trillion Dollar elephant in the room.
Emergency rooms around the country are mandated to care for patients without regard to insurance. Hospitals are required to give care to patients in advanced stages or illness. These mandates cost the American health care consumer trillions of dollars over the years. Every family that carries insurance pays $1,000 to $2,000 extra each and every year to pay for these people who do not carry insurance of their own.
Even if we did not require these people to pay for their own insurance – if we paid it for them – it would cut the cost in half. If they had the medical care to prevent the end stage problems of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease, it would cut the cost in half. If they were required to pay for it themselves, it would shift the cost to them – where it belongs. – and it would cut the cost in half.
Last Updated on Friday, 22 June 2012 15:33