Big Banks. Fail.

Starting today four on the nation’s biggest banks stopped accepting IOUs from the cash-strapped state of California.

Check the list:

• Bank of America,

• JPMorgan Chase & Co.,

• Wells Fargo & Co., and

• Union Bank of California.

Recognize some of the names? Yep, they’re many of the same ones that you and I bailed out with federal loans, guarantees, and forgiveness.

Now I don’t much like seeing states issuing IOUs while they sort out their political goings on. And Professor Natelson ponders whether they might even be unconstitutional.

But watching big banks penalize small business and consumer recipients of IOUs not only seems like playing politics with the helpless citizens caught in the crosshairs, but it strikes me as exceedingly bad business. Watch all those customers head over to the local credit union or community bank. And never come back.

His Lordship

“The most important thing I achieved today was catching more fish than the director of FWP, ” said Gov’nur Schweitzer.

Last Friday, he was one of the first legal people to float through the confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot rivers.   That’s right – the river is ready for floating, and by all accounts, the fishing is just dandy!

“There’s some nice little fishing holes in here,” noted Joe Maurier, acting director of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Woohoo! Let’s go!

But, wait.   Don’t launch your boats just yet.  It ain’t legal for you.   YOU are gonna have to wait at least another year.

Unless you’re a friend of his Lordship.   In which case, he’ll grant you a special exemption and you can float on down at your leisure.   There won’t be any yahoos on their inner tubes and there’s won’t be any noisy speed boats heading the opposite direction.   This little stretch of river is only for the rich and powerful!

It was the sort of thing that happened in England all the time – if you wanted to hunt on someone’s land you had to be invited to the annual hunting party, if you wanted to fish a stretch of river you had to be a member of the local club, and if you were caught on someone’s property picking berries or mushrooms you could expect to be shot.   The royal elite controlled the land and the poor had no rights of access.   And you can be sure the lords and ladies didn’t want to share it with you.

Of course, the thing is, over here every man, woman, (and dog?) is treated equal.   We have public lands that are owned by all of us, paid for by all of us, and part of our common heritage and liberty.   We’re proud of our rivers here in Montana and we don’t much like the government telling us where we can and can’t go.  Its part of our freedom to wander at will, chasing those elusive cutthroats and moseying on through the riffles.

So, why the heck did Governor Schweitzer choose July 4th weekend to remind us that all citizens are created equal… but that some are more equal than others?   Because he can.

Game over, pal

After nearly eight months, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty has finally acceded to the will of the Minnesota public. He certified the results of the election that will seat Al Franken as the junior senior.

Why the delay? All round grumpy person, Norm Coleman had filed a legal complaint. Turns out he didn’t have a strong legal case, after all. He, and his fellow Republicans, filed thousands of pages of legal documents, cost everyone millions of dollars, and had left many ordinary Minnesotans weary.

The only winners were the Republican legal team, certainly not the Republican party in Minnesota (and elsewhere). It has left them not only with egg on their face, but facing claims of obstructionism and of failing to recognize they lost.

Both claims are increasingly being leveled at Republicans at the national level. They’ve become the party of ‘No’. This is not an effective political strategy, nor is it good governance. An effective minority party needs to not only point out the faults of the administration but also to present a viable alternative. That is, don’t just say things are wrong but explain why they are the wrong way to proceed and what a better approach might look like. Otherwise, it just feels like you’re a sore loser, having taken your bat and ball and gone home.

Attack!

They say a good defense is the best offense, or is it the other way around? Either way, Michael Moore was being quite defensive on the front page of today’s Missoulian. It seems that another genuine, hardworking citizen has been driven from public office and the paper of record must feel as though they contributed to the controversy.

Kelley Hirning has resigned as a member of the Missoula County school board. She has done so as a result of the complaint brought by partisan parent Mark Zuber. (He felt that videos shown to his child were done so in violation of the district’s academic freedom/controversial issues policy).

More importantly today (since the policy has been much discussed and updated) is Hiring’s claim that the Missoulian inaccurately reported the controversy and that the school district’s administration (i.e. Alex Apostle) failed to correct the inaccuracy. Zuber felt the story was accurate.

It is a great pity that the Missoulian didn’t today present more of the details of Hirning’s letter or follow up with her concerning the inaccuracy. Instead, reporter Moore quickly attempts to defend the Missoulian’s original coverage:

“We did not BAN the video … ,” Hirning said.

Although the Missoulian’s stories didn’t describe the board’s action as a “ban,” many critics of the board’s decision did.

While I don’t agree with Hirning on many topics, I know her to be honest, upfront and well meaning. She is the sort of civic-minded person we would want serving on one of our boards and commissions. Instead, she is, “Done with politics. I never wanted to be a politician anyway, I’m a mom that wanted to help.”

I can’t help but feel that another scalp (along with teacher Kathleen Kennedy) will be claimed by Zuber and like-minded activists who brought the original complaint. I just wish the Missoulian presented this issue as the political campaign that it has always been, instead of playing defense on their own coverage.

Tell us which bits you don’t like

Please, Mr. Rehberg, could you be more specific about what part of the Obama stimulus program you don’t like. Simply being critical of the federal spending, in general and on principle, isn’t good enough.

As Pogie (over at Intelligent Discontent) capably points out, Rehberg boasts all about the federal pork money he brings to Montana.

Perhaps Rehberg could tell us which of the following federally funded projects he doesn’t like. After all, he voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Here’s some of things he didn’t want to fund:

* Fixing Rye Creek Road, on the Bitterroot National Forest, was one of four water enhancement projects funded by the first allocation of federal stimulus moneys in Montana.

* Statewide, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will deliver $31.4 million in roadwork on national forests.

* $3.4 million has been allocated for energy efficient upgrades for Montana schools, including projects as lighting, boilers and heating-and-ventilation system upgrades.

* $77 million in federal stimulus funds will go to reconstruction or renovation of five of Montana’s border stations.

More examples and details of how the federal stimulus dollars are being spent in Montana can be found here. The State of Montana estimates that 11,000 jobs will be created or saved here, although they’ll never be able to prove those numbers.

Surely, Mr Rehberg isn’t against fixing up the old roads, school facilities, and border crossings? If so, perhaps he could clearly explain why government live up to its responsibility to be good stewards of these necessary facilities. Does he want rural residents to continue to drive on sub-standard roads? Does he want school kids freezing from poorly maintained classrooms, or does he want school districts to be frittering away their limited budgets on huge energy bills? Or does he want those of us who must cross the border on a regular basis (and that is mainly Montanans and Albertans) to have to wait while the border patrol works around an antiquated, cramped, and inefficient border crossing?

Perhaps Mr Rehberg would also like to explain why he doesn’t want us to spend money on hunting and fishing supplies. You see, in a similar vein, the Fed and the Treasury Department provided nearly $400 million to the Cabela’s credit-card operations through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF. That’s right – without the federal bailout moneys, Cabela’s, that well known outdoor retailer, would have canceled much of its credit card program. Surely Mr. Rehberg wants to explain what’s wrong with helping us buy all those guns, bullets, cases, rods, jackets and fishing flies?

Here’s to your health

It looks like the University of Minnesota is going to ban alcohol from the new football stadium, the hockey arena and the basketball arena. Seems as if the good Governor, and potential Presidential contender, Tim Pawlenty doesn’t want to discriminate – sell booze to one, then sell booze to all.

So, the University President said no deal. Although “providing alcohol in controlled areas was part of our business plan”, apparently allowing those outside of the premium seating areas of the stadium (those luxury boxes and club rooms, you know) purchase an alcoholic beverage sent the wrong message to students. The Minnesota state legislature called that elitist.

Universities all across the nation have very strict policies on the use and abuse of alcohol. The University of Montana’s policy, for instance, says that

• Consumption of alcoholic beverages on University property is prohibited by Montana University System Policy 503.1 except as expressly permitted.

• No event involving the service of alcoholic beverages may take place on the campus without the prior written approval of the President of the University or his/her designee.

• No organization, business or individual, except the Grizzly Athletic Association, or its designee, may sell, or offer for public consumption, beer or other alcoholic beverages on the campus in conjunction with home football games.

• Will not use any University logo, trademark or name in conjunction with alcoholic beverage or tobacco products or symbols.

• Will not make alcohol or tobacco the focus of any University event, or use availability of beer or other alcoholic beverages or tobacco to promote any University event.

Pretty stern stuff, eh? Given the extraordinary cost, both economic and social, of the abuse of alcohol and other drugs, we would expect nothing less from our institutes of higher learning.

Except the sort of hypocrisy that says it is OK to drink lots of alcohol outside the stadium at one of the many, sprawling tailgates, but not in the stadium. The sort of hypocrisy that says it is OK to drink in one of the luxury suites, but not in the rest of the stadium. The sort of hypocrisy that says it is OK to frequent establishments such as the Press Box as part of the pre-game or post-game festivities, but not to become inebriated in so doing (oh, and no ripping down the goal posts and displaying them in a drunken rampage all through downtown, thanks).

I’m sure the young, easily-influenced undergraduates can navigate that maze of nuance, just as they have since they began drinking alcohol at the tender ages of 15, 12, or even 8. They are adults now, after all. Maybe the University of Montana could start treating them as such and allow everyone the chance to enjoy a beer or wine at the game?