Montana Legislature
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16829) 6 years ago
It is too bad those idiots in the House don't know how bonding works.

Remember to vote against those wankers who voted no on our infrastructure needs in 2016.

http://billingsgazette.co...t=BGKarenS
Top
+5
-2
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9981) 6 years ago
House delivers nothing to build up Montana

The Montana Senate on Monday may have given the House one more chance to support building up Montana.

Unless 67 House members vote Tuesday for Senate Bill 416, there will be no help for Laurel’s water system emergency. No state matching grants for Montana communities struggling with rapid growth from the Bakken oil boom. Montana public buildings, sewer and water systems and roads will deteriorate and fall further behind demand for service over the next two years. A House minority killed the session’s major infrastructure bill Monday.

SB416, sponsored by Sen. John Brenden, R-Scobey, was the last bill of the 2015 session and had already been approved by the Senate. Last week, 70 House members voted for it on second reading. Then several Republicans change their votes to “no” overnight and the bill failed on final reading.

On a vote at noon Monday, the bill fell one vote short of the 67-member supermajority required because it included authority for the state to issue bonds.

Just one more “aye” would have passed this bill. Just one more vote in favor of local infrastructure projects that would have prioritized the needs of oil boom communities in Eastern Montana. Just one more vote would have allowed the city of Laurel to get some state help. One more vote would have assured that the local governments across the state could get matching state grants for public infrastructure. One more vote would have upgraded buildings on Montana university campuses, including the Montana State University Billings library renovation.

The bill was a compromise that recognized disagreements about how much revenue the state will have and how much it should spend. The bill included triggers that would have provided more cash and loans to local governments and allowed more state borrowing, if revenue exceeded certain thresholds.

There were things in the bill that some of the 66 “yes” voters didn’t like and things left out of the bill that some of them wanted. But the majority wisely agreed that the investment package in SB416 was better than nothing.

Thirty-three Republicans insisted that nothing was better than something they thought would please the Democratic governor.

Five Billings Republicans were among those “no” voters: Clayton Fiscus, Dave Hagstrom, Don Jones, Sarah Laszloffy and Daniel Zolnikov. They owe their constituents explanations. They voted to deny support to city and county governments, the university system, the Montana Historical Society, and state parks.

If there is another vote on SB416, every member of Yellowstone County’s delegation should be in favor. Our legislators must be willing to cooperate for the good of Montana — even if they don’t get everything they want.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.co...f2209.html
Top
+4
-1
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9981) 6 years ago
Montana House votes to adjourn, Senate says no

HELENA — The Montana Senate has refused to adjourn for the session after lawmakers in the House voted down a $150 million infrastructure bill and moved to go home four days early.

Senators voted 33-14 Monday to nullify a House motion earlier in the day to adjourn for the session. They also voted to move their Monday agenda items to Tuesday at 7 a.m.

Representatives defeated Senate Bill 416 by one vote Monday morning. It needs 67 votes to pass due to bonding in the bill and after initial passage, has failed multiple times on a final vote.

Senate Bill 416 was crafted by a bipartisan group and introduced after lawmakers rejected a $400 million infrastructure proposal from the governor.

It is the final issue before the Legislature, which has already passed a two-year budget.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.co...60da0.html
Top
+3
-1
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16829) 6 years ago
Reminder to all, this our tax dollars paying for all these shenanigans.

And we are all paying for their health care insurance!
Top
+5
-1
Posted by Bill Mac (+69) 6 years ago
Want to know how Our Representative voted??
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/le...TY_ID_SEQ=

just click on the vote count and find is name... Just a hint you can look for the N as he didn't support critical infrastructure improvements for Eastern Montana. Guess he'd rather see local taxpayers pick up the whole cost for those improvements via property tax increases.

Same for his vote not to fund the Quality Schools program..which was instrumental in out School Districts being able to make long delayed major repairs to our school facilities "WITHOUT" property tax increases.

The argument against partial bonding is total bull. Ask any successful business person that has to occasionally borrow money to make money.
Top
+5
-1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14825) 6 years ago
Quote from Dirk Adams which sums up nicely the republicans in this version of the legislature:

Well the Republican State Legislature has ended the session. Once again they did not get a contract for "Flying Monkeys," a new reality show, but it was close and Hollywood remains interested. Art Wittich seems to be the holdup as Hollywood cannot seem to find an actor both crazy, delusional, corrupt and mean enough to play him.


Top
+1
-1
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9981) 6 years ago
It's over: Lawmakers leave without passing statewide infrastructure bill

HELENA — The Montana Legislature ended its 2015 regular session this morning, as lawmakers quickly adjourned after failing one last time to pass a $150 million bill funding infrastructure and state building projects across the state.

At a floor session that started at 7 a.m., House Minority Leader Chuck Hunter, D-Helena, asked the House to suspend its rules to vote again on Senate Bill 416, the infrastructure bill. The vote fell five votes short of the needed two-thirds majority, 61-36.

Rep. Mike Miller, R-Helena, then moved to adjourn the session for good, and the House agreed at 7:07 a.m. on a 63-35 vote. The state Senate followed suit a few minutes later.

While lawmakers left Helena without passing the infrastructure bill, the Legislature managed to pass several major initiatives since it began in January.

It voted to expand Medicaid health coverage for thousands of low-income Montanans, approved the controversial Flathead tribal water-rights compact and passed a campaign-finance bill that intends to crack down on “dark money,” requiring all groups spending on elections to report their donors and spending details.

A coalition of minority Democrats and some Republicans formed the majorities that passed all three of those measures.

At meetings with reporters this morning, leaders of the Republican majorities in both the Senate and House said they were proud to have kept state spending increases to a minimum, at about 3 percent a year during the next two years, and to have passed an increase in state funding for public schools early in the session, rather than leaving it as a “political football” at session’s end.

GOP leaders expressed disappointment over the failure of the infrastructure bill, and said Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock shared some blame for refusing to negotiate on the bill in the final days of the Legislature.

“We wanted to work the entire weekend, on changes in the legislation,” said Senate Majority Leader Matt Rosendale, R-Glendive. “We were told they were not going to change the legislation, that they were going to change minds (on the legislation).”

Bullock administration officials have said they already compromised greatly from their original proposal for a bigger infrastructure bill.

The bill needed approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate because it includes authority for the state to borrow money, through bonds, to finance some of the projects in the bill. The bill achieved the two-thirds majority twice in the past week on preliminary votes, but then fell one or two votes short on several final votes, including a 66-33 vote on Monday.

SB416 funded had $100 million for grants and loans to local governments for public-works projects and another $50 million for state capital projects, including $25 million for a new Montana Historical Society museum and center in Helena, $23 million for renovating Romney Hall on the Montana State University campus in Bozeman and $7.6 million to expand state mental-health facilities in Warm Springs and Lewistown.

It also included $10 million in bonding to finance construction of a veterans’ nursing home near Butte.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.co...c42be.html
Top
+1
-2
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16829) 6 years ago
Way to go, Miles City. You voted these guys into office.

You pathetic bumpkins deserve exactly what is coming to you.

Which is nothing.

Hooray for the Tea Party!
Top
+5
-2
founder
supporter
Posted by Tom Masa (+2003) 6 years ago
Same thing with the ND Legislature. What a bunch of clowns.
Top
+2
-1
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16829) 6 years ago
I am so disgusted with the Republican party. I used to vote for candidates based on their alignment on issues that I am concerned with, but with the Tea Party takeover, I will just vote"D" until the GOP comes to their senses, and rids itself these 21st century John Birchers.
Top
+7
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+188) 6 years ago
I can't really understand the outrage against people who believe that you don't spend money that you don't have. The outrageous position of the much hated "Teabagger".

The infrastructure bill went down because of the bonding provisions.

"Bonding" is debt-financing. The same thing that generated $18,000,000,000,000.00 in US debt. Spending money you don't have.

Is it just a little bit understandable there may be a few Montana (and North Dakota) Legislators who don't want to go there?
Top
+1
-5
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16663) 6 years ago
"Oddjob", do you believe that people should not finance the purchase of a home using a home mortgage loan?
Top
+1
-1
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11546) 6 years ago
Bonding is how governments pays for stuff. This is not some mysterious new idea. It has been going on for years and years. A century, even. I have some 100 year old municipal bonds. I remember when I was at MSU and they paid for the new media center with bonding. We were excited. But that was before the Baggers.

And if we said, let's spend millions on stuff, you know the cons would say, "oh, noes, we can't spend money."

We needed the jobs and the infrastructure but the Tea Baggers, who believe the purpose of government is to make rich folks richer, turned it down. Which was stupid because most big contractors are rich folks and building things makes them richer.

We could afford it. We needed it. But politics won out over the actual needs of the people.
Top
+3
-1
Posted by Oddjob (+188) 6 years ago
Amorette Allison wrote:
Bonding is how governments pays for stuff. This is not some mysterious new idea. It has been going on for years and years. A century, even. I have some 100 year old municipal bonds.


If it worked so well 100 years ago, let's get back to how they did it 100 years ago and put the permission to borrow back on the ballot.

You see how well "bonding" works when the government gives itself the power to borrow.

What is Montana's off-the-books liability? Can you even hazard a guess?

Here's a clue.. The State is in the debt death spiral the same as everybody else.

http://ballotpedia.org/Pu...in_Montana

But it's a good thing to let politicians decide when they can borrow money...Right?
Top
+1
-3
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11546) 6 years ago
Oh, come on. You know it all about political parties. If the Gov wanted to spend money, the baggers would whine. If he wanted to borrow money, the baggers would whine. That's what they do.

Whine.

30 years ago, the city and county turned down the idea of a 25-year S.I.D. to pay for a new 'flood protection system.' And now the cost has gone UP and the grants available have gone DOWN because they were afraid of a tried and true system that works.
Top
+2
-1
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9981) 6 years ago
I'm still wondering if Oddjob believes a mortgage is a good (or foolish?) way to buy a home?
Top
+2
-1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14825) 6 years ago
"I can't really understand the outrage against people who believe that you don't spend money that you don't have. The outrageous position of the much hated "Teabagger".

The infrastructure bill went down because of the bonding provisions. 

"Bonding" is debt-financing. The same thing that generated $18,000,000,000,000.00 in US debt. Spending money you don't have.

Is it just a little bit understandable there may be a few Montana (and North Dakota) Legislators who don't want to go there?"

The US debt sure as hell wasn't spent on infrastructure.
Top
+1
-1
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16829) 5 years ago
Good editorial by the Helena Independent Record yesterday on how failing to pass an infrastructure bill last session is hurting eastern Montana.

http://helenair.com/news/...f909d.html

Poor Jon Sesso. Trying to educate stupid Tea Partiers on simple financial matters.
Top
+4
-1
Posted by Oddjob (+188) 5 years ago
So the way I read this, the bill would have allocated the cash toward some individual's pet boondoggles (buildings in Bozeman, Helena and Billings) and debt toward real infrastructure like roads, bridges, water and sewer. Nothing to difficult to understand about why this was opposed. Hopefully those fiscal conservatives will do the same if a similar situation arises in the next Legislature. Giving politicians free ride to borrow is what generates $200 trillion in debt and unfunded liability.

If your Democrat Governor is flush with cash, why doesn't he allocate some of it to fix the failing infrastructure in the Republican Districts of Eastern Montana? That's a "bi-partisan" gesture.

I have no problem with bonding. Used correctly, it can do wonderful things.

Put it on the ballot and let the people have the say in the obligations put upon them.
Top
+2
-4
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16663) 5 years ago
Math is hard.
Top
+3
Posted by Oddjob (+188) 5 years ago
Yeah, it is....
Top