Leadership Seminar Series Alumnae Make the News!

Three Leadership Seminar Series Alumnae (yes, that's the feminine plural of alumni!) have made the news in the past few weeks. Check out these articles featuring Kyla Wiens, Erin Switalski, Alexandra Scranton and Carrie LaSeur:

"Running on Empty Tour" comes to Montana | Great Falls Tribune

"Group protests chemicals in children's products outside Baucus' Missoula office" | Missoulian

"Keystone XL pipeline would screw over farmers, threaten aquifer" | grist.org

The Truth About the Power Line Struggle

By Ken Toole
President, The Policy Institute

I’m writing regarding the recent editorial about eminent domain and the struggles over power lines. The editorial made some factual errors that need to be addressed.
First, let’s address the current controversy over siting of two power lines, the Mountain States Intertie and the Montana Alberta Tie line. Each of these lines has its own particular issues which are varied and complex. But the editorial said there was no similar controversy when the power lines from Colstrip were built. That is simply wrong. The Colstrip lines were opposed vociferously. Some of my first political experience was on the “Hold the Line Committee” in the Bitterroot Valley which opposed the Colstrip line crossing the valley and successfully got it moved farther north.

In many ways the fight over the Colstrip line was the same as the struggles we are seeing today. Fights over power lines are very hot and very short lived. Often the opponents have little interest in broader policy issues or being part of any bigger picture. They simply want the line moved. If you move it over the next ridge the room fills with a different set of opponents. But, that does not preclude opponents from making policy and big picture arguments. Nor does that prevent public officials from mistaking the heat of a local power line fight for some kind of sustaining political base.

But the editorial also missed something very important. Traditionally the political alignment around power line projects is developers versus conservationists. That is not the case today. The editorial pointed to a piece written jointly by representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a labor union that has typically been supportive of big power projects, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the nation’s largest environmental groups. In addition, The Montana Environmental Information Center supported the legislation revising eminent domain laws and the Western Environmental Law Center is actively working on the MSTI proposal to develop a new process for siting with broad public involvement, community education and economic analysis.

Many environmentalists have moved beyond just saying no to new power lines. The reality is that the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels cannot continue. The threats posed by climate change, relying on other countries for our energy supplies and the price volatility resulting from fossil fuel commodity markets have to be addressed. Equally important, our electric infrastructure is aging and, no matter what the fuel source, it needs to be upgraded. And that is going to cost a lot of money. Our money should be spent making investments that move us away from continued dependence on dirty and expensive fossil fuels toward more efficient use of the power we have and development of clean, domestic and renewable sources of power. That means new power lines may have to be built.

The second error is the contention that wind power is more expensive than the alternatives, particularly coal. This is simply not true. The cost of energy we get from the Judith Gap Wind Farm is less than the cost of power you are getting from Colstrip 4. Somehow wind power has become fodder in an ideological struggle in the political arena. Some people simply refuse to see the technological advancement in wind power that has occurred in the last 30 years. Not surprisingly these same folks don’t see the same pattern as solar power is reaching commercial production scale. It is ironic that the same folks who scream about “subsidies” granted to renewable power sit silently as billions of dollars in subsidies, tax loop holes and support programs are handed out to various fossil fuel industries.

The advantages of renewable power development are significant and self evident. Montana could play a role in meeting the increasing demand for renewable power. We should do it on our own terms assuring that the people of the state benefit from any new development. But to those who simply say “no” I just have to ask, how much longer do you want to stay dependent on fossil fuels, and what kind of world are we leaving for our children?

Teresa Veltkamp (1972-2011)

We at The Policy Institute were deeply saddened by the news of the untimely passing of Teresa Veltkamp, a Class of 2010 Alumna of the Leadership Seminar Series. Teresa was a bright light in our program and inspired the January 2011 session which asked the question, "What Does Our 'Perfect America' Look Like?"

During the session, artist Grace Cheung created the piece you see here which includes images of justice, growth, peace and love against a backdrop of interlocking, multi-colored puzzle pieces. Thank you, Teresa, for being one of our puzzle pieces, and for making Montana a better place.

Great Plains Advocate Takes on Keystone XL

Leadership Seminar Series participant (Class of 2011) Carrie LaSeur has written a compelling, well-researched, articulate piece over at grist.com about the effects of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. Check it out.

Good Bills Given Little Consideration in 2011 Legislature

By Molly Severtson
Executive Director

Now that the dust has settled from the 2011 Montana Legislature, it is appropriate to look beneath the surface of the session – beyond the headline-grabbing bills: the spear-hunting bill, the nullification bills and the bill that would have ended the Endangered Species Act in Montana – to look at a couple of bills that were really good ideas, but were given little consideration during the session.

One of these bills was Senate Bill 398, introduced by Sen. Christine Kaufmann of Helena, which would have increased the progressivity of Montana’s income tax system by adding a high-income tax bracket to the tax code. As it stands, Montana’s income tax rates are almost flat, with a tiny bit of progressivity at the bottom end, meaning that a family with a taxable income of $14,000 a year pays the same tax rate (6.9%) as a family with a taxable income of $4 million a year. Montana is also one of the only states in the nation which taxes families living in poverty (6% for those with a taxable income of $3,000 a year).

Sen. Kaufmann’s bill would have increased the tax rate on taxable income of $250,000 a year and more to 11%. This change in the tax code would have brought in more than $80 million a year starting in fiscal year 2013.

The idea that progressivity – or ability to pay – is inherently the fairest type of tax system is an idea that goes back millennia, including the Biblical story of the widow’s mite. The idea behind supporting a progressive system is this: For a family making $20,000 a year, it is much harder to give up say 5% of their income – or $1,000 – than it is for a family making $300,000 a year to give up the same percentage of their income because their basic needs – and then some – are already being met. Therefore, it is fair to tax people at an increasing percentage in accordance with their income. The impact of each of the different tax rates on those families will be felt in much the same way, making the system fair.

It is also true that high-income people benefit at a higher level from the social infrastructure supported by a stable tax system, including public safety and public roads. If you own a profitable business on a busy street, you benefit at a higher level from people being able to access your business than someone who simply uses the same road to drive to a modest-paying job. It is to your great benefit that the road be maintained, and so it follows that you should contribute a higher percentage of your income to support it.

These are important issues that should be debated by our representatives in the legislature. But while the spear-hunting bill was passing out of the Fish and Game Committee 7-3 and passing 2nd and 3rd readings in the Senate, passage of SB 398 was never even voted on in the Senate Taxation Committee, let alone debated on the Senate or House Floors.

Another bill worthy of careful consideration was Sen. Mary Caferro’s Senate Bill 360, a bill that would have enacted a refundable, state-level earned income tax credit – or EITC – in Montana. Republican hero President Ronald Reagan is often quoted as touting the federal EITC as, “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.”

As structured in SB 360, a state EITC in Montana would have cost the state about $33 million per year, less than half of what SB 398 would have brought in. In addition, studies have shown that low-income families typically put their EITC right back into the local economy, paying a month’s rent, buying groceries or making a needed car repair.

Initiatives to enact EITCs have often been met with bi-partisan support in other states, and in the 2009 Montana Legislature, an EITC bill passed out of the House of Representatives with Republican support, but in this session, just like SB 398, SB 360 got very little consideration in the Senate Taxation Committee. The bill was tabled on March 12 and died in committee.

Undoubtedly, the topic of tax fairness is complex and should be vigorously debated. Several important principals are related to tax fairness, including the equity of a tax system (whether or not it treats those at the same income levels and different income levels fairly), the simplicity of a tax system (whether or not it allows excessive loopholes and is understandable) and a tax system’s exportability (the extent to which the system taxes out-of-state individuals and businesses which benefit from the state’s infrastructure).

The knee-jerk reaction of many legislators, especially those on the far-right end of the political spectrum, is a continual cry for lower taxes in the name of economic development despite the fact that reliable studies have consistently shown that state tax rates have little effect on business decisions. However, the quality of a state’s infrastructure has been shown to have a large effect on such decisions, and the state’s infrastructure – its roads, its public safety, its educated workforce – are all supported by a strong, stable tax system.

Overall, this legislative session was mostly one of defense for progressive taxation advocates, and the hard work of many people prevented many bad bills from passing. But the time taken to debate the legitimacy of bills Gov. Schweitzer called “frivolous,” “silly,” and “just bad ideas,” took time from serious bills that deserved serious debate and serious consideration including Senate Bills 398 and 360.

Leadership Seminar Series in Indian Country

The Policy Institute will present the Leadership Seminar Series in Indian Country, June 30 and July 1, 2011, at Hearth View Center in Arlee, Montana.

The event, designed specifically for Native American participants, will feature presentations and discussions led by prominent Indian leaders such as Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, and will cover topics like Indian voting history and current trends, and bridging the urban/rural divide of Native Americans in Montana.

The event will be presented at no cost to participants and will include one night’s stay (Thursday, June 30) at the Heart View Center in Arlee, dinner on Thursday (June 30) evening and breakfast on Friday (July 1) morning.

If you are interested in attending, please feel free to contact Molly Severtson for more information.

Legislature Didn’t Reflect True Montana Values

By Molly Severtson
Executive Director, The Policy Institute

The 2011 Montana Legislature adjourned more than one month ago, but the memory of the rocky road that was the 62nd session is still fresh in many minds. Those on the progressive end of the political spectrum knew it would be rough going in this Legislature for our values — including economic justice, fair taxation, corporate accountability and environmental responsibility — but I’m not sure anyone could have predicted the assault these values would be under in this Legislature.

During the session, far-right legislators like Rep. Janna Taylor, R-Dayton, and Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, R-Kalispell, said they were intent on “cutting spending,” even when proposals to do so made no logical sense (rejecting federal funds for health and human services), were against the will of the people (cuts to Healthy Montana Kids) and were especially cruel (cuts to personal services for seniors and people with disabilities).

Perhaps worse, these same lawmakers were unwilling to support common-sense proposals that would have increased revenue to the state, such as House Bill 222, sponsored by Rep. Dick Barrett, D-Missoula.

HB 222 would have required withholding of income tax at the time of sale on real estate sales of at least $250,000 — but not if the seller were a Montana resident or business, or if the property were a primary residence.

The bottom line: This legislation would have collected a tax — already on the books — from wealthy out-of-staters who sell their expensive vacation homes in Montana. According to testimony by the Department of Revenue, these sellers are sometimes unaware of their tax obligation to the state, but other times, willfully ignore attempts by the state to collect the tax after the sale has been finalized. Collecting the tax at the time of sale would address both of these scenarios.

According to the bill’s fiscal note, this law would have resulted in an increase in income tax collections of more than $3 million each year. HB 222 wasn’t a “new tax.” It didn’t increase a tax rate. It simply provided increased enforcement of a current law. But the bill died in the House Taxation Committee, tabled under the leadership of committee chairman Rep. Mark Blasdel, R-Somers.

At the same time that conservatives were unwilling to help the Department of Revenue collect millions owed to the state through bills like HB 222, they were willing to give up many more millions by supporting measures like Senate Bill 372, a bill that reduced the business equipment tax in Montana.

SB 372, sponsored by Tutvedt and signed by the governor in May, will reduce revenue to the state by more than $14 million in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and even more in subsequent years. Who are the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation? Conservatives would like you to think that small businesses in Montana will benefit most from this legislation. However, since the first $20,000 worth of business equipment is already exempt from taxation, it’s actually larger businesses that will benefit most. In fact, the largest beneficiaries of the bill will be multinational corporations doing business in Montana, like ExxonMobile and Conoco Phillips. And with big oil companies once again seeing record profits, this is hardly the time to offer them a tax break.

The tide seems to be turning in a progressive direction over the past few months. The push-back against an attack on collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin included tens of thousands of protesters in and around Madison, and the recent election of Democrat Kathy Hochul in a traditionally conservative district of New York state seems to bode well for progressives in 2012.

Like most Wisconsinites and New Yorkers, most Montanans aren’t interested in extreme far-right ideas. They know that the social progress gained in the not-so-distant past must be protected today. Montana values include helping out a neighbor when times are tough and coming together as a community to make every citizen’s quality of life better. As Rep. Jon Sesso, D-Butte, said during the session, “A friend’s good fortune is a blessing,” and Paul Wellstone put it this way: “We all do better when we all do better.”