County air quality receives ‘C’ grade - By Laura Lundquist - my commentary

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. my comments in bold.

----------
(Laura Lundquist is quickly establishing herself as an advocacy writer pretending to be a reporter. I've commented on her writing here, here, and here. It's hard to miss the regurgitation of press release talking points in this article.

The American Lung Association provided the air quality grades we are reading about here. The Gallatin valley has had THREE bad air days in four years, and received a "C" grade. But Looking at the ALA's rankings, we can see that there are cities that have chronic air quality problems. As you look through these lists, you will note that California dominates the poor air quality rankings. This is the same California that has the most stringent air pollution controls in the country. Apparently they aren't working that well. 

Absent from the writer's report is that Gallatin County improved from a D to a C. But what's really interesting is the ALA's chart of Montana counties. There's little or no data for almost all of Montana. Which makes me wonder, the "C" grade... what is it compared to? What is the data set? Is Montana really an at risk place for people to live? I spent a lot of time on the ALA website and could find precious little on state-to-state rankings. So can we ask, is the ALA simply trying to spread fear and get people on board with its big government agenda? Do we really need to ask?)

Chronicle Staff Writer
For the past few years, sooty air has occasionally blurred some of the Big Sky and posed health threats for Montanans, according to an American Lung Association report.

In its “State of the Air” national report released Wednesday, the American Lung Association graded nine Montana counties, and only three received high marks for overall air quality. That’s troubling news for
those with respiratory problems like asthma or emphysema.

Gallatin County received a “C” grade due to three days where the air quality reached unhealthy levels between 2009 and 2011, according to Department of Environmental quality records.

Flathead, Richland and Sanders counties sailed through those three years with no unhealthy air quality while Silver Bow, Lewis and Clark, and Ravalli counties flunked for the amount of pollution in their air. Silver
Bow County led with 19 days where air quality stayed unhealthy over a 24-hour period.

The nine counties are the only ones in Montana with air-quality sensors sensitive enough to measure soot particles as small as 2.5 micrometers, one thirtieth the width of a human hair. That may seem too small to cause problems, but tiny particles can get deeper into the lungs of people with respiratory problems and irritate lung passageways. Sneezing can expel larger particles, but micro particles can sneak by the body’s defenses and even migrate into the blood stream.

Studies continue to document how small-particle pollution can trigger illness, hospitalization and occasionally premature death.

So when the level of particle pollution is categorized as “unhealthy,” children and people with respiratory illnesses should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

In Gallatin County, the worst year was 2009 when West Yellowstone had two of the three days where airborne soot exceeded the allowable limit.

In 2010, a sensor in Belgrade registered the one other unhealthy day, while a second day was just a notch below unhealthy. Last year, the DEQ moved the Belgrade sensor to Bozeman High School to better monitor the valley’s population center.

The cause of these three air quality events was not evident in the report. But Eric Merchant, DEQ air quality policy and planning supervisor, said in Montana, poor air quality is often caused by extended inversions,
where warmer air aloft keeps cold air locked in mountain valleys and air particles can accumulate for hours or days.

“Gallatin County, and most of eastern Montana, has pretty good air quality, but it can get elevated levels of particulates from wood stoves and car exhaust in the winter,” Merchant said.

This report did not include measurements from 2012, when the valley was cloaked in wildfire smoke and had at least a dozen summer days with unhealthy air quality.

Merchant said wildfires are one of the main reasons for maintaining the air quality sensors, although DEQ also uses them to demonstrate the state’s compliance with Clean Air Act standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency has provided funding for monitoring, but that may be lost or diminished now that the EPA budget has been cut in the sequester. The EPA is implementing mandatory furlough days for its employees in an effort to save money for important programs.

But Merchant said Montana is invested in the air-quality monitoring program.

“We have a very established program that is a department priority,” Merchant said. “These are important tools, particularly with Montana’s wildfires, to let people know when the air is unhealthy.”

Door to door in Boston - Is a warrant needed?

Wow. The police are going door-to-door. Hmm. Did they obtain a search warrant for each house?

R.W.: If a gun man was holding my family hostage in a back bedroom, I'm not sure I would want the cops to go file 1000 search warrant petitions and wait for a judge to sign them all. I would assume there is something in the law which covers an active pursuit.

Me: Probable cause, Rick. They can enter without a warrant with probable cause. Beyond that, being secure in our persons and property is inviolable.

K.M.: So were warrantless wiretaps. Slippery slope!!

S.H.:  It is called "hot pursuit." If I recall my old Criminal Procedure correctly, hot pursuit is an exception. If the police searched a homeowner's house, finding the bomber, the bomber had no right to privacy in that house, because he did not own it. On the other hand, if the cops found a bunch of illegal drugs belonging to the real homeowner, then there could be complications for charges against the true homeowner.

Me: I defer to you, my friend. Does a door to door search qualify as hot pursuit? It seem to me they are not following a suspect into private property, they are searching to find someone whose location is not known. A property owner shouldn't have to forfeit his rights in that situation?

R.K.: Unbelievable, people had there legs blown off and your worried about someone on private property. I haven't seen all of the news did someone ask for a warrant?

Me: Do you think that a terrible tragedy should mean the police gets to barge in and search your house without probable cause? What other excuses should the government have to declare that they can throw out the constitution?

Me: If the government come to my door, they're going to have to respect my rights, "emergency" or not.

R.K.: I think that anyone that questions this at such a tragic time is STUPID! and yes I think they can and should barge in, it could protect the innocent property owner or save his life. Your way out line on this one.

R.K.: I hope your house doesn't catch on fire. It's the government that puts the fire out you know.

Me: Yup, I'm stupid to question the police searching my home without probable cause. They should just barge in and tear it apart. They should also be able to round up Japanese people and inter them in a camp, legalize slavery of blacks, and...

O.C.: They aren't searching to incriminate you, dumbass... You think SWAT guys give a shit about your grow op or the hooker? (well ok, they might call you on the hooker...)

Probable cause doesn't even come into play here because the search has nothing to do with the home owner (other than assuring their safety). If charges were brought against a home owner due to observations during these searches, they would be cut down in court.

'Searches' while under martial law (which they basically were) and profiling/internment/slavery are completely separate unrelated issues.

Please take this the wrong way... But I'm starting to think your brain is just one big pile of mush with no boundaries on any ideas. Everything seems to be interrelated with you, to the point where every topic is the same topic, thus it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you that doesn't just spiral into meaningless bullshit.

I bet you get that alot tho, huh?

Gay marriage vs. other relationships - FB discussion

I posted this:

And why not? Seems perfectly logical to me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303908/Jeremy-Irons-claims-gay-weddings-used-inheritance-tax-dodge.html

Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons has added an unusual dimension to the same-sex marriage debate, by saying it could lead to fathers marrying their sons because laws do not cover incest between men.


Me: When two people love each other they should be able to marry. Are a man and his son somehow not included? Or a mother and her daughter? Grandfather and grandson? Once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by gender combinations, obviously neither it can be by other variables.

B.R.: I just made the same noise at you that your profile photo is making at the world.

Me: I had hope for a thoughtful, logical response, but instead all you offer is an insult.

B.R.: I would say the same about your post. You've joined forces with Scar The Evil Lion to conveniently suspend the rules of reason. You're simply throwing up another dust cloud into this crystal clear issue.

"Once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by gender combinations, obviously neither it can be by other variables." Really? This is simply illogical. The legal system does, in fact, have ways of changing SPECIFIC policy details without allowing ALL variables in the door. Face palm...

Currently, marriage is allowed for non-related heterosexual adult couples. The next step is for marriage to be allowed for non-related adult couples, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation.

Incest is NOT ON THE TABLE. Pedophilia is NOT ON THE TABLE. Beastiality is NOT ON THE TABLE. Necrofilia is NOT ON THE TABLE. Group marriages are NOT ON THE TABLE. Polygamy is NOT ON THE TABLE.

Jeremy Irons' vapid statements, which you are bafflingly associating yourself with, present no reliable argument against gay marriage. They are stale air and poppycock. Jeremy Irons is being a troll.

When you offer up one tangible reason that gays and lesbians should not be allowed equal rights and access to marriage, then we can have a thoughtful, logical conversation. So far, in this effort, you have repeatedly failed.

Me: May I respectfully point out the egregious flaws in your reasoning?

Workplace discrimination against gays - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Be aware.

For those who think we don't need federal legal protection for LGBTs, this map shows where you can still be FIRED simply for being gay. And it happens daily. We have much work to do.

Me:  Incorrect.

B.R.: Source?

Me: You first.

P.N.: Partly true:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp

B.R.: Rich - thank you for asking me to provide the sources, I like practicing accountability in these matters, and it helped me learn a lot. Here's a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg

B.R.: Oh cool! Hey Rich, here's another source to back it up. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Employment_Laws_and_Policies.pdf

Me:  The issue is being characterized incorrectly, or may I suggest, deceptively. "States where you can be fired for being gay" is as meaningful as saying "States were you can be fired for wearing red shoes." The correct characterization is "States that do not have specific employment laws protecting gays."

My state, Montana, does not. Its anti-discrimination statute reads, " It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for... an employer to refuse employment to a person, to bar a person from employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of race, creed, religion, color, or national origin or because of age, physical or mental disability, marital status, or sex..." 49-2-303

However, Montana is not an "at will" state. (http://employeeissues.com/at_will_states.htm). After satisfying a probationary period, an employee can be fired only for cause.

You'll note in the link I supplied that there is quite a variation amongst states regarding employment law, so to suggest that people can be summarily fired is simply inaccurate.

And we can't overlook other factors that govern employment, like union membership, contract employment, temporary employees, the self-employed, and individuals who work for politically progressive private employers. Taken together, the picture you posted is at best factually incorrect, and at worst, intentionally hyperbolic.

B.R.: Great, thanks for even more detail. If I concede to all your references and points, will you agree that LGBT workers deserve legal protection equal to non-LGBT workers?

Me: No bargain is necessary. The issues are what they are.

I happen to think that all anti-discrimination laws ought to be repealed. These are voluntary associations amongst private parties, and the government has no business intervening in our right to freely associate.

K.S.:  "States that do not have specific employment laws protecting gays" translates to me, "States where you can lawfully be fired for being gay." The issue stretches beyond political technicalities and into the fabric of our society so deeply that sure enough, homophobic people within said states will (and have) take advantage of the lack of any laws protecting gay employees; thus, firing them unfairly with no other reason other than the fact that they are gay. Certainly, this may be masked under some other lame guise but it still doesn't give the gay community any safeguards against discrimination in the workforce; a blazing issue because other minorities do have such laws protecting them from discrimination.

B.R.: Does the government have any business protecting any citizens from harm? Your scenario is terrifying when viewed from the perspective of any minority in America. I respect and have learned greatly from your perspective on personal freedom, but your dismissal of LGBT civil rights and your preference for the freedom to discriminate both reek of unconsciousness and unexamined privilege.

K.S.: Moreover, all states are "at will" states. Meaning they can all get fired but the states listed above fall into loopholes that prevent them from getting sued.

Me: K.S., perhaps you should read the link. All states are not "at will."

B.R.: You mean the part that says, "Virtually all states are employment at will states, meaning that all states uphold the Doctrine to some degree. To what degree states uphold the Doctrine regarding employers' rights to discharge employees varies by state." ?

Me: I mean the part that says, "Montana is unique in the degree at this writing, in that it upholds employment at will only when new-hires are working during a probationary period (defaults to six months from hire date under Montana law). Outside of that, employers in Montana must have good cause to discharge employees."

K.S.: I read your link but per the definition of federal law, all states are "at will" states. Meaning, people hire at will and similarly, a worker can quit at will. Where it differs is when public-policy exceptions come into play. This is what allows said states to circumvent discriminatory laws and openly discriminate upon employees because they do not have the exception. Implied Contract Exceptions convolute the issue even further, placing the burden of truth of unlawful firing solely on the employee. This is what I meant when I said that the issue stems far beyond the notion of "at will." What is disturbing is that the states wherein you can be fired for being gay, have buffers in place to protect *them* from egalitarianism. Egalitarianism, by definition, is democracy; something that the US proudly purports to be. This is an interesting and alarming concept to ponder because these states use the notion of democracy to practice open discrimination because egalitarianism means equality. In other words, they are equal and have the "right" to NOT practice equality. Messed up, isn't it??

Me: Terrified, B.R.? What a strange choice of words. People who have freedom always take a risk, but I value freedom more than I fear risk.

K.S.: Even the "freedom" to discriminate?? But isn't that taking away other people's freedom?

Me: Egalitarianism: "a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights, or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power." Calling egalitarianism democracy is a category error.

K.S.: Egalitarianism means equality. Democracy sits on the platform of fairness and equality.

B.R.: Terrified is a pretty middle of the road way of describing what I'm talking about and what you're not acknowledging. Ever been fired for something you can't control? Ever been excluded by your peers with no way of confronting them about it? Ever been bullied by people that hate you for no good reason? Ever been cornered and intimidated because of your personal lifestyle? Ever been mocked publicly and screamed at and spit on and urinated on? Ever had your ass groped by a stranger? Ever had your dick grabbed by another man?

Me: We discriminate all the time. I discriminated against every other woman in the world when I proposed to my wife. I chose a hamburger without cheese, thus discriminating against cheeseburgers. I bought my house in a neighborhood that didn't have mobile homes.

Me: Democracy does no such thing. Democracy is a horrible system of governance.

Me: B.R., yes to many of those situations. In no instance did I run to government like a child to demand they punish the perpetrators.

Expanded Medicaid good for Montana - letter by Juliette Vail - analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold. ------------------ (I have already demolished these Medicaid expansion arguments here, here, and here. Given the frequent editorials and AP articles published in the Chronicle, with very few voices of dissent, it would appear that the paper is engaging in advocacy. I will therefore avail myself of every opportunity to counter the propaganda here in my blog.)    I want SB 395 to reach the governor’s desk. This week, Democrats and a few Republicans showed the foresight, intelligence, and commitment to our state that we expect from our elected officials when the Montana Senate passed the Medicaid expansion by a vote of 26-24. Medicaid expansion is one of the most important proposals before our Legislature this session, and as the Legislature is entering its last weeks, I am so thankful that it is on the move!    Simply put, Medicaid expansion would result in 70,000 Montanans with access to affordable health care and 13,000 jobs created in our communities and state. (Please read the above links for a debunking of these fake benefits.) The trickle down benefits (Whoa, did she just advocate trickle down? I thought trickle down was a failed experiment. I thought President Reagan was a buffoon for believing that economic benefits at the top trickle down throughout the economy. And now we have a sadly misinformed letter writer who thinks that trickle down only works if it is government money.) of these populations are incredible and mean healthier families and communities, a boost for our economy, and an improved future for our state. We can’t afford to miss this opportunity, and we need to send SB 395 to the governor’s desk as soon as possible. ========================== (Though I won't comment on the guest editorial below, since it simply regurgitates the same talking points, I did want to publish it in order to note for the record that even accomplished business people have bought in to the inane logic of the Medicaid expansionists. I am pretty sure that I will never again frequent the businesses of these folks.)  -----------------------------

Economy reason enough to support Medicaid expansion
By BILL JOHNSTONE, DEAN FOLKVORD AND RAY KUNTZ

   This week is the deadline for the Montana House and Senate to pass a Medicaid expansion bill from one chamber to the other. As business leaders deeply committed to the health of Montana’s economy and workforce, we strongly support accepting federal funds to expand eligibility for the state’s Medicaid program. While there are several reasons for our support, we want to emphasize one — the substantial, positive and long-term impact on economic growth and job creation that Medicaid expansion will produce in
comparison to the investment required by the state.

   The independent Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research has produced a thorough, well-supported, and thoughtful economic analysis of the potential economic ramifications of Medicaid expansion in Montana. The essential findings of the analysis are these:

   Over the first eight years, expansion would bring approximately $6 billion of new funds into the state — on average, roughly $750 million per year. Montana would very quickly create and sustain 12,000 to 14,000 new highpaying jobs. To place that in context, that’s 30 percent more than the existing total mining and logging jobs in the state.

   Montana would provide health care insurance, and all the health and societal benefits that come with it, to approximately 60,000 to 70,000 Montanans.

   And what does Montana need to contribute to receive these substantial economic benefits for our people? For the first three years, federal funding would cover 100 percent of the costs, other than relatively small
administrative costs. Over the first eight years, we need to contribute roughly $70 million per year. However, based on the bureau’s analysis, between reduced uncompensated care costs and increased state and local tax revenues from the expanded economic activity, the net present value cost to Montana is roughly ... $0.

   In our businesses, we make investment decisions every day based on cost/benefit analysis and return on investment. As a business decision, the proposed expansion of Medicaid clearly makes sense.

   We also believe there are other business reasons to support expansion. Most Montana businesses incur substantial costs in order to offer health insurance to their employees. Those costs are driven higher for businesses because we all pay part of the price for uncompensated care for the uninsured. In 2011, Montana health care providers were uncompensated for over $400 million worth of health care to the uninsured. That uncompensated care results in cost-shifting to businesses, taxpayers, and individual consumers of private insurance. Expanding eligibility to Medicaid would reduce uncompensated care by approximately $104 million from 2014 to 2021.

The result: lower health care costs for all of us.

   We appreciate that the Affordable Care Act is controversial and was opposed by many. How we pay for and deliver quality health care to our citizens will continue to be one of our greatest challenges and the topic
of considerable discussion and debate. Undoubtedly, the dialogue will continue, and the public and private solutions to our health care needs will evolve. If and when those changes occur, our state and our businesses
will need to respond and adapt.

   However, at present the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. Our businesses and citizens will pay the incremental taxes and penalties imposed by the Act irrespective of whether Montana opts in to Medicaid
expansion. It would be especially unfair and illogical for Montanans to pay their fair share of these costs, and be denied the benefits we have helped fund.

   Lawmakers on both sides of aisle have often and sincerely pledged that jobs and the economy are their number one priority. We hope they will thoughtfully and objectively consider the unique opportunity before us to substantially increase good paying jobs, meaningfully expand economic activity in the state, cut costs for businesses, and positively impact our citizens and the state we all love. As the head of the state Chamber of
Commerce in another conservative state recently put it, “This is not a political issue; it’s an economic issue.” We hope the Montana Legislature will reach the same conclusion.

   Bill Johnstone is CEO of Davidson Companies in Great Falls, Dean Folkvord is CEO of Wheat Montana Farms and Bakery in Three Forks, and Ray Kuntz is CEO of Watkins & Shepard Trucking in Helena. The above views are not official positions of their companies, but the viewpoints of the individuals. 

Secretary of State Linda McCulloch's latest email

When Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch sends out her periodic emails, there is always something in them that gives me pause. Here's a couple screen shots from the latest one:

In this short blurb she tells us several questionable things.

1) Dedicating a month to certain people recognizes "the importance of continuing to ensure equal opportunities for ever race and gender..." Oh, isn't it wonderful? I feel so warm inside knowing that equality has been furthered by these courageous actions! Our Secretary of State is doing so much to create opportunities. But wait. What's her job again? Is this what she is charged to do by the laws of Montana?

2) She has a "personal conviction." She's committed to "protecting your voting rights." *Sigh* I don't even know what to say. Is this personal conviction a duty outlined by the laws of Montana, or is it an agenda of an activist elected official? I suspect she's thinking of HB 30, which would roll back Election Day voter registration , and HB 108, which modifies voter eligibility. You see, but insisting that people identify themselves, that means peoples' rights are being curtailed. Like a typical leftist, she thinks of voting as a sacred act, one that should have absolutely no impediments.

3) She wants us to contact our legislators to tell them how important our right to vote is. Doesn't she mean that she wants us to contact our legislators to tell them to vote right?

Here's the other part of the email:

"A monumental victory for young Americans." Actually, a monumental victory for Democrats, since young people tend to vote for them. This amendment did absolutely nothing for anyone in terms of liberty or civil rights, despite Mike Mansfield's hyperbole. If "youngsters" (that is, those between 18 and 21) were being discriminated against, then what about 17 year olds? Are they being discriminated against?

This is the thing about the misuse of words. They lose meaning. Every law creates two groups, each on opposite sides of it. There are those whom the law favors or gives privilege to, and there are those whom the law is against. Every law is discriminatory, and that's a good thing! Laws against theft discriminate against thieves. Laws  restricting the age of drivers keep young, inexperienced people off the roads. Laws against murder are unfairly weighted against murderers. Exactly as it should be.

We want discrimination. We need it. We need the law to be against things and for other things. That's what it does.

Gay Marriage - FB discussion

I posted this on FB:

"...in many liberal minds, opposition to same-sex marriage must surely stem from fear."

B.R. Yes, many but not all. I appreciate that qualifier on the generalization. However, many other liberals have come to the assumption that it may not be about fear, but simply stubbornness rooted in selfishness. In other words, it seems like those who oppose same-sex marriage must believe that maintaining the validity of their own personal definition of marriage is more important than allowing strangers "one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival". (Chief Justice Earl Warren)

Me: So it's either fear or selfishness? Accusing someone of an emotional state is a cop-out designed to neuter and marginalize.

There is no right to marriage.

B.R.: Well, if it's not fear or selfishness, then those who oppose gay marriage are doing a terrible job of representing themselves. There's no upside to denying equal rights to American citizens. As for the right to marriage, you can disagree with the Supreme Court if you want to, but they've said quite clearly that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival". In fact, there's precedence for marriage discrimination being unconstitutional - after Loving V. Virginia, the decision was that any regulated institution (such as marriage) may be set up initially with exclusion (such as denying interracial marriages in the past), but that it's unconstitutional to set up FUTURE exclusionary regulations for that institution. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. If you don't like it, take it up with the Constitution.

Me: Or maybe the pro gay-marriage crowd is doing a terrible job of listening.

The Supreme court also ruled that blacks were property, that property could be taken without a warrant, that Bush beat Gore, Citizens United, Plessy v. Ferguson, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital. Ben, you must be kidding.

Please quote the constitution's affirmation of gay marriage.

B.R.: I'M listening. Tell me why gay people don't deserve the same marriage rights as straight people.

B.R.: And I'm not kidding - I can disagree with the Supreme Court, but to say that their rulings aren't valid is nonsense. They're the law.

Me: Because there is no such thing as marriage rights.

Me: I did not say that Supreme Court rulings aren't valid.

B.R.: You're being evasive again. I understand there's a difference between human rights and legal rights. But right now, many many gay people are being prevented from getting married. I don't think the people opposing gay marriage are doing so because of their firm belief that "there is no such thing as marriage rights". I understand if you think that government should get out of the marriage business, but until that happens, millions of gay people are still left with second-class citizenship. Are you alright with that?

Me: I'll stop being evasive if you stop spouting slogans. My original post pointed out the fallacy of the "fear" slogan, so you simply move on to another slogan, "second class citizenship." It's intellectually vapid stuff like this that is beneath you, Ben.

If gays are really second class citizens, then so are 12 year olds who can't get a drivers license, 32 year olds who can't hold the office of the President, and polyamorists who are forbidden to marry the two people that they love. One can list hundreds of classes of people, who by virtue of what a law says, cannot do something someone else can do. That's what laws intrinsically do, is create classes of people. You have to know this, Ben.

Speaking of evasive, you have not complied with my request: "Please quote the constitution's affirmation of gay marriage."

B.R.: Compliance: The constitution didn't affirm gay marriage. The Supreme Court confirmed the unconstitutionality of banning certain people from being married, when they decided Loving V. Virginia.

Fear is not a slogan; homophobia and bigotry are rampant in America. Second class citizenship is not a slogan; there's a section of Americans who don't get the same fundamental rights as the rest of the country.

Your examples show me that you would rather not see this issue for what it really is, and I can do nothing to change your mind about that. We say "let gay people get married", and you say, "not everybody gets what they want". It's willfully ignorant to shrug off millions of people crying out for equal rights by listing other laws that limit certain people in certain ways.

12 year olds just have to wait four years to get a driver's license, and there's no united mass of 12 year olds screaming out for change. 32 year olds just have to wait til they're old enough to run for President, and there's no united mass of 32 year olds screaming out for change. Polyamorists are very different than polygamists, and there's no united mass of either one screaming out for change. So how long do gay people have to wait?

You have done nothing to show me a single reason why gay people should not be allowed to get married. So what are you hiding behind? What damage will it do to allow committed couples who are deeply in love to get married like everybody else in this country? Which straight people will be negatively affected by queers tying the knot? Where's this resistance coming from? I beg you to be honest and tell me. If it's not fear and it's not selfishness, and you can't actually establish any good reason that these exclusionary limits on marriage should continue, then stay out of the way of social justice.

Me: Ben, please calm down.

Are you saying that people clamoring is the measure of constitutionality? What sort of standard is it that makes the level of agitation a reason to change laws?

Me:  The burden of proof rests with gay marriage advocates, not me. You have to show there is a compelling reason to change the way society has functioned for centuries.

And by the way, you are selectively quoting Loving v. Virginia. The decision was to allow mixed race couples to marry, with Warren citiing the reason: the propagation of the human race. I don't buy his reason, but certainly gay marriage does not yield children.

You neglected to address my point in your nitpicking about "clamoring" and age. The fact of the matter is the law creates privilege for some and denies it to others, for whatever reason. There is no rights violations in any of these instances, because rights do not come to bear.

Me: I have no interest in what consenting people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, it is not my business. But if there are legal ramifications regarding the union of people in any fashion, that can be dealt with in the law and legal contracts. If gays were simply interested in legal protection of their assets, wealth transference, etc, those can be easily solved and I am not in the transaction.

But gays force me and everyone else into their bedrooms by demanding society's solemn/celebratory approval for their relationships. This is unreasonable. It's also contradicts their stated desire to be private. My sole and singular interest in the gay marriage debate is to be left alone.

B.R.: Very well spoken as usual. I can find no error in your words, except to say that gays aren't forcing you to do anything. You'll be left alone if you get out of the way of their civil rights - which they deserve and will inevitably receive. If you really believe it's not your business, stop posting about it.

Me: You have no way of knowing what will happen, nor can you know who will be forced to do what. If I can say one thing about the Left, they love to force people to do things. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the issue will not stop with the granting of gay marriage.

I guarantee you that howls of "homophobia" and "hater" will not stop, but will intensify. Those are the tools of the Tolerant Ones. The left is persistent. What it cannot get all at once it will pursue incrementally. Gay marriage is an incremental step.

My posting was about the sloganeering of the Left, not about gay marriage per se. And I will post about anything I choose to, thank you very much. Your attempt to silence dissent is unseemly.

B.r.: If you could provide even one reason that gay men and women should not be allowed to have the full rights and benefits of marriage in America, then I wouldn't discourage you from speaking out about it. But you don't seem to have any. Your dissent on this matter is empty, and your desire for obstruction of social justice serves no one. So, in order for you to get what you want ("to be left alone") and for me to get what I want (equal rights for gays and lesbians), the best course of action is for you to stop posting about it.

B.R.: A very conservative friend of mine hopped onto one of my threads the other day, and talked about gay marriage with a couple of polyamorous friends of mine. He said:

"I hate homosexuality and think it's is a disgusting mental disorder but I support their right to get married. That being said, who am I to tell them what to do! Equality is equality and freedom is freedom. Live and let live. And let a republican like me own my guns in peace, and do whatever else I like as long as I'm not harming others. Truthfully, I don't hate gay people. I'm just taking an extreme to prove a point that you don't have to agree with someones lifestyle but you should support their rights. I have a few gay friends but they are more acquaintances really. They disagree with my lifestyle and I disagree with theirs but that doesn't me we have to restrict each others freedoms. I know I sound like a broken record but, live and let live."

Me: More slogans. "Social justice" is a high-sounding but meaningless phrase. And we have discussed at length what constitutes rights. Interestingly, you haven't even tried to establish that rights are actually being violated.

Regarding benefits, I already noted that they can be dealt with legally: "But if there are legal ramifications regarding the union of people in any fashion, that can be dealt with in the law and legal contracts."

It seems to me that I'm not being evasive or providing empty dissent. Rather, I'm clearly stating my thought processes, and you either don't like them or didn't read them. And you haven't offered anything as a rejoinder other than well-worn catch phrases.

Me: What your friend said is interesting, but irrelevant.

Me: You seem to want to pigeonhole me into some sort of hostility, dare I say, bigotry that is unwarranted by my presentation. To be against gay marriage does not mean I fit your stereotypical templates. Otherwise, how would you account for gays who are against gay marriage?

B.R.: We're talking past each other. You want to prove that there is no official right to get married, and I want to prove that gay people should be equal under the law to other Americans. I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong.

I don't think you're a bigot and I don't think you're homophobic. I think, on this particular issue, that you're on the wrong side. You care about love, you care about committed partnerships, you care about personal freedom and you care about keeping the government out of our personal lives. You said that it's up to gay rights advocated to "show there is a compelling reason to change the way society has functioned for centuries".

They have - society has changed, and so it's time for this law to evolve. It happened with women's right to vote, it happened with segregation, it happened with interracial marriage, and now it's happening with gay marriage. According to most states and the federal government, gay people do not have the legal right to get married, I admit to you. But they should.

There are millions of Americans asking for that right for their own lives and the lives of their families, and 58% of the country is behind them. If we have to wait until that percentage is even higher, then that's what we'll do.

You will never run out of reasons to oppose gay marriage. There's just no good reason left. I would like you to support gay marriage. Please support gay marriage.

Me:: If one doesn't understand the argument, then one cannot ascertain the solution.

First, being "equal under the law" is an expression relating to equal justice when being tried for a crime. This is a much different topic than what you're trying to connect it to. "Equal protection," as referenced by the 14th amendment, restrains the states from abridging "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This first applies to "natural rights" (i.e., unalienable rights), but then extends to legal rights. That means what the Feds grant, the states must grant.

Interestingly, the Feds grant only "one man, one woman" via DOMA. So the 14th amendment actually argues against your position. Extending the logic, the states that have chosen to grant same sex marriage are in violation of the 14th amendment.

Second, your position about privacy, etc. strikes me as incredibly odd. How can you be in favor of privacy and personal choice and at the same time argue for more government involvement in private relationships? It makes no sense!

I really find your advocacy puzzling. You're a demonstated intellect, yet your defense of your position has been presented with the stock phrases, talking points, and buzz words of the gay lobby, as if by repeating them you've made a case.

I neither support nor oppose gay marriage. You hope I would support it, but why is my celebration of gay marriage even on the radar? Why should society give its holy stamp of approval based on who someone sleeps with? Why should the private relationships of people be of concern to me or anyone else? Jesus H. Christ, why can't people just leave people alone?

List of foolish government spending

Sourced from here.
------------
The following are some of the completely outrageous ways that the U.S. government is wasting money…
#1 The National Science Foundation has given $384,949 to Yale University to do a study on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”.  Try not to laugh, but much of this research involves examining and measuring the reproductive organs of male ducks.
#2 The IRS spent $60,000 on a film parody of “Star Trek” and a film parody of “Gilligan’s Island”.  Internal Revenue Service employees were the actors in the two parodies, so as you can imagine the acting was really bad.
#3 The National Institutes of Health has given $1.5 million to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts to study why “three-quarters” of lesbians in the United States are overweight and why most gay males are not.
#4 The National Institutes of Health has also spent $2.7 million to study why lesbians have more “vulnerability to hazardous drinking”.
#5 The U.S. government is giving sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even though the new president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi (a member of the Muslim Brotherhood), constantly makes statements such as the following…

“Dear brothers, we must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them”

#6 During 2012, the salaries of Barack Obama’s three climate change advisers combined came to a grand total of more than $370,000.
#7 Overall, 139 different White House staffers were making at least $100,000 during 2012, and there were 20 staffers that made the maximum of $172,200.
#8 Amazingly, U.S. taxpayers spend more than 1.4 billion dollars a year on the Obamas.  Meanwhile, British taxpayers only spend about  58 million dollars on the entire royal family.
#9 During 2012, $25,000 of federal money was spent on a promotional tour for the Alabama Watermelon Queen.
#10 The U.S. government spent $505,000 “to promote specialty hair and beauty products for cats and dogs” in 2012.
#11 NASA spends close to a million dollars a year developing a menu of food for a manned mission to Mars even though it is being projected that a manned mission to Mars is still decades away.
#12 During 2012, the federal government spent 15 million dollars to help Russian weapons institutes recruit nuclear scientists.
#13 Over the past 15 years, a total of approximately $5.25 million has been spent on hair care services for the U.S. Senate.
#14 The U.S. government spent 27 million dollars to teach Moroccans how to design and make pottery in 2012.
#15 At a time when we have an epidemic of unemployment in the United States, the U.S. Department of Education is spending $1.3 million to “reduce linguistic, academic, and employment barriers for skilled and low-skilled immigrants and refugees, and to integrate them into the U.S. workforce and professions.”
#16 The federal government still sends about 20 million dollars a year to the surviving family members of veterans of World War I, even though World War I ended 94 years ago.
#17 The U.S. government is spending approximately 3.6 million dollars a year to support the lavish lifestyles of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
#18 During fiscal 2012, the National Science Foundation gave researchers at Purdue University $350,000.  They used part of that money to help fund a study that discovered that if golfers imagine that a hole is bigger it will help them with their putting.
#19 The U.S. government is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority every year.
#20 Federal agencies have purchased a total of approximately 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the past 10 months.  It is claimed that all of this ammunition is needed for “training purposes”.
#21 During 2012, the National Science Foundation spent $516,000 on the creation of a video game called “Prom Week” which apparently simulates “all the social interactions of the event.”
#22 If you can believe it, $10,000 of U.S. taxpayer money was actually used to purchase talking urinal cakes up in Michigan.
#23 When Joe Biden and his staff took a trip to London back in February, the hotel bill cost U.S. taxpayers $459,388.65.
#24 Joe Biden and his staff also stopped in Paris for one night back in February.  The hotel bill for that one night came to $585,000.50.
#25 If you can believe it, close to 15,000 retired federal employees are currently collecting federal pensions for life worth at least $100,000 annually.  That list includes such names as Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Dick Gephardt and Dick Cheney.
#26 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $300,000 to encourage Americans to eat caviar.
#27 The National Institutes of Health recently gave $666,905 to a group of researchers that is conducting a study on the benefits of watching reruns on television.
#28 The National Science Foundation has given 1.2 million dollars to a team of “scientists” that is spending part of that money on a study that is seeking to determine whether elderly Americans would benefit from playing World of Warcraft or not.
#29 The National Institutes of Health recently gave $548,731 to a team of researchers that concluded that those that drink heavily in their thirties also tend to feel more immature.
#30 The National Science Foundation recently spent $30,000 on a study to determine if “gaydar” actually exists.  This is the conclusion that the researchers reached at the end of the study….

“Gaydar is indeed real and… its accuracy is driven by sensitivity to individual facial features”

Here are 30 more examples of outrageous government waste from one of my previous articles entitled “Chimps Throwing Poop And 29 Other Mind Blowing Ways That The Government Is Wasting Your Money“…
#1 In 2011, the National Institutes of Health spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.
#2 The National Institutes of Health has spent more than 5 million dollars on a website called Sexpulse that is targeted at “men who use the Internet to seek sex with men”.  According to Fox News, the website “includes pornographic images of homosexual sex as well as naked and scantily clad men” and features “a Space Invaders-style interactive game that uses a penis-shaped blaster to shoot down gay epithets.”
#3 The General Services Administration spent $822,751 on a “training conference” for 300 west coast employees at the M Resort and Casino in Las Vegas.
The following is how the Washington Post described some of the wasteful expenses that happened during this “conference”…

Among the “excessive, wasteful and in some cases impermissable” spending the inspector general documented: $5,600 for three semi-private catered in-room parties and $44 per person daily breakfasts; $75,000 for a “team-building” exercise — the goal was to build a bicycle; $146,000 on catered food and drinks; and $6,325 on commemorative coins in velvet boxes to reward all participants for their work on stimulus projects. The $31,208 “networking” reception featured a $19-per-person artisanal cheese display and $7,000 of sushi. At the conference’s closing-night dinner, employees received “yearbooks” with their pictures, at a cost of $8,130.

You can see some stunning pictures of GSA employees living the high life in Las Vegas right here.
#4 Do you remember when credit rating agency Egan Jones downgraded U.S. government debt from AA+ to AA?  Well, someone in the federal government apparently did not like that at all.  According to Zero Hedge, the SEC plans to file charges against Egan Jones for “misstatements” on a regulatory application with the SEC.
Normally, the SEC does not go after anyone.  After all, when is the last time a major banker went to prison?
No, the truth is that the SEC is usually just a huge waste of taxpayer money.  According to ABC News, one investigation found that 17 senior SEC officials had been regularly viewing pornography while at work.  While the American people were paying their salaries, this is what senior SEC officials were busy doing…

One senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington spent up to eight hours a day accessing Internet porn, according to the report, which has yet to be released. When he filled all the space on his government computer with pornographic images, he downloaded more to CDs and DVDs that accumulated in boxes in his offices.
An SEC accountant attempted to access porn websites 1,800 times in a two-week period and had 600 pornographic images on her computer hard drive.
Another SEC accountant used his SEC-issued computer to upload his own sexually explicit videos onto porn websites he joined.
And another SEC accountant attempted to access porn sites 16,000 times in a single month.

#5 According to InformationWeek, the federal government is spending “millions of dollars” to train Asian call center workers.
#6 If you can believe it, the federal government has actually spent $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
#7 The U.S. Agency for International Development spent 10 million dollars to create a version of “Sesame Street” for Pakistani television.
#8 The Obama administration has plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars to help students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.
#9 The National Science Foundation spent $198,000 on a University of California-Riverside study that explored “motivations, expectations and goal pursuit in social media.” One of the questions the study sought an answer to was the following: “Do unhappy people spend more time on Twitter or Facebook?”
#10 The federal government actually has spent $175,587 “to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior”.
#11 In 2011, $147,138 was given to the American Museum of Magic in Marshall, Michigan.  Their best magic trick is making U.S. taxpayer dollars disappear.
#12 The federal government recently spent $74,000 to help Michigan “increase awareness about the role Michigan plays in the production of trees and poinsettias.”
#13 In 2011, the federal government gave $550,000 toward the making of a documentary about how rock and roll contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.
#14 The National Institutes of Health has contributed $55,382 toward a study of “hookah smoking habits” in the country of Jordan.
#15 The federal government gave $606,000 to researchers at Columbia University to study how heterosexuals use the Internet to find love.
#16 A total of $133,277 was recently given to the International Center for the History of Electronic Games for video game preservation.  The International Center for the History of Electronic Games says that it “collects, studies, and interprets video games, other electronic games, and related materials and the ways in which electronic games are changing how people play, learn, and connect with each other, including across boundaries of culture and geography.”
#17 The federal government has given approximately $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research into video games such as World of Warcraft.
#18 In 2011, the National Science Foundation gave one team of researchers $149,990 to create a video game called “RapidGuppy” for cell phones and other mobile devices.
#19 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once handed researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
#20 In 2011, $936,818 was spent developing an online soap opera entitled “Diary of a Single Mom”.  The show “chronicles the lives and challenges of three single mothers and their families trying to get ahead despite obstacles that all single mothers face, such as childcare, healthcare, education, and finances.”
#21 The federal government once shelled out $2.6 million to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
#22 Last year, the federal government spent $96,000 to buy iPads for kindergarten students in Maine.
#23 The U.S. Postal Service once spent $13,500 for a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.
#24 In 2011, the Air Force Academy completed work on an outdoor worship area for pagans and Wiccans.  The worship area consists of “a small Stonehenge-like circle of boulders with [a] propane fire pit” and it cost $51,474 to build.  The worship area is “for the handful of current or future cadets whose religions fall under the broad category of ‘Earth-based’, which includes Wiccans, druids and pagans.”  At this point, that only includes 3 current students at the Air Force Academy.
#25 The National Institutes of Health once gave researchers $400,000 to study why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
#26 The National Institutes of Health once gave researchers $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
#27 The National Institutes of Health once spent $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.
#28 The National Science Foundation recently spent $200,000 on a study that examined how voters react when politicians change their stances on climate change.
#29 The federal government recently spent $484,000 to help build a Mellow Mushroom pizzeria in Arlington, Texas.
#30 At this point, China is holding over a trillion dollars of U.S. government debt.  But that didn’t stop the United States from sending 17.8 million dollars in foreign aid to China in 2011.

Just say no to privatizing public education - editorial by Rep. Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) - commentary

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------

(It wasn't too long ago when the state MEA reps wrote their own editorial opposing school choice. So here we have another.)

This session we’ve heard a lot of bills that bear a striking similarity to model bills from the legislative agenda of the corporate bill-mill American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC. Whether a particular bill is an ALEC model bill, whether a bill’s subject is just high on the ALEC agenda, or whether a bill was written by a former ALEC member like the National Association of Charter Schools, a bad idea driven mainly by out-of-state interests is still a bad idea driven mainly by out-of-state interests. (How interesting that Ms. Wilmer opposes out-of-state interests writing bills. You can almost guarantee that anything the Left accuses the Right of doing is something they do themselves.)

What’s particularly sinister about pouring so much money into state legislatures to get these pro-corporate bills passed is the payoff and punishment underbelly of ALEC and other corporate-sponsored groups.

Legislators who cooperate will be rewarded with huge campaign donations that enable them to prevail over any opponent funded by regular (living breathing, real) people; (Notice the false characterization. Only the Right does this, and their opponents are supported only by real people.) 

and non-cooperative legislators will find themselves faced with an extremely well-funded primary or general-election opponent. From this springs another half dozen bills to dramatically raise or altogether eliminate restrictions on corporate contributions to campaigns. A perfect storm: corporate funded campaigns to legislators who will carry out a corporate agenda. (Apparently this is worse than being beholden to "immigration reform" shadow organizations,  Or the case of Ms. Wilmer herself, who spent $276,000 in her reelection to the Montana House.  Here's where she got her money:

(So she got $15,000 from PACs. Is she therefore beholden to big moneyed interests herself?)

What all of these bills have in common is that none addresses a problem we have in Montana. They are aimed at carrying out a national agenda. Nowhere does this seem more apparent than in the 6-pack of so-called “schoolchoice” bills. One even gives tax credits to corporations. Now if you ask some Montanans whether they think it would be good to have more “school choices” they might say “yes,” hence the slick designer language. But if you ask most Montanans whether they think we should cut public education funding and give taxpayer dollars to private, mostly religious schools, most would adamantly say “no!” And that’s what each of these bills does in sometimes cleverly designed funding mechanisms that sound like we run public education as a “fees for services” program. If you “choose” take your kid out, you can take your taxes out too. But what about childless couples, single Montana taxpayers, and people whose kids have grown? Why shouldn’t they get a rebate too? (Indeed, why should people without kids in school pay for schools? By reverse logic, why do only those who live in a particular neighborhood have to pay for their road improvements? Shouldn't that be borne by everyone?) 

Because public education is a public good that benefits all of us. (She doesn't say how it benefits all of us. I suppose she's trying to make the case that educated people contribute to society. But don't private schools also educate people?)

Decrying that “one size doesn’t fit all” advocates want to give parents whose kids don’t “fit” a tax rebate they can use at a private school that “fits.” This argument is flawed on many levels. First of all, our teachers and administrators are already innovative and rightly insulted by the false notion that our schools are boot camps grinding out cookie-cutter educated students. (That remains to be seen. Individual schools and/or teachers may indeed be innovative, but we don't know what constitutes innovation, nor do we know that every school or teacher [or even a majority of them] deserve this accolade. Ms. Wilmer is making a sweeping generalization. But worse, she is presuming to know what parents should want, and concludes without justification that public schools meet all those preferences. Clearly they don't or there would be no private schools.) 

Second, Montana already has public charter schools and other innovative programs — 57 of them serving over 1,500 students. (In other words, Ms. Wilmer deems what the state offers to be sufficient and that other choices are not necessary or not legitimate.) 

Third, these public charter schools have certified teachers, are overseen by elected school boards, and guided by statewide standards through the Board of Public Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction. (Washington DC schools have the same characteristics, and they are some of the worst schools in the nation.) 

None of this is true for the proposed private charter schools, which is one reason they are likely still unconstitutional. Third, (Um, fourth, but who is counting?) 

the Montana constitution specifically prohibits taxpayer revenue going to sectarian schools. 

(The Montana Constitution say this in Article 10, Section 6:

The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.

Do you notice that it says "public funds." Prior to being taxed from people, those funds are "private funds." The potential to tax is not the same as having a pre-existent claim on private funds. That money belongs to the individual taxpayer before it is taken and converted to public use. Therefore, a tax credit, a voucher, or the creation of a class of people to which a certain tax does not apply is not in violation of the Montana Constitution because it isn't "public funds" until government extracts it from the taxpayer.)

Who were the proponents of these bills? Catholic schools, schools offering a “classical Christian education,” and the Christian Montana Family Foundation. Budgetary flimflam aside, tax money that would go to public education retained by taxpayers to pay for private education is tax money going to private education. (She just countered what I wrote above, but leaves it as a bare assertion. Notice the flawed language based on a flawed premise. She starts with the phrase "...tax money that would go to public education..." She's trying to claim that money that belongs to individual taxpayers is subject to a higher claim of ownership by the state. Because the state will take it at some point, it doesn't belong to the taxpayer right now. This means it is public money before it is taken! She continues, "...retained by taxpayers..." You will note that money that hasn't been taxed is simply money retained by the taxpayer. It isn't the taxpayer's money, it is simply retained by the taxpayer. 

She concludes that it is therefore "...tax money going to private education..." Astonishing! Can you imagine, this woman is charged with overseeing the affairs of the state of Montana, but can't even logically approach an issue!)

Montana is not Chicago or D.C. (But those are public schools as well, with all the checks and balances and innovation and certified teachers that we in Montana have. Does this mean she supports private school funding in Chicago or DC?) 

Our dropout rate is 4.1 percent — down from 5.2 percent since Superintendent Juneau initiated her “Graduation Matters” program. Montana students consistently earn top scores in nationally standardized tests of proficiency in math and science. Yes, where there is poverty there is underperformance, and that is true all over the U.S. “Graduation Matters” targets those students too, with great success. And if we pass SB 14 we can join 49 (all) other states that support students staying in school until at least the age of 19, which will certainly further lower our dropout rate. (Yes, Montana schools are generally preform very well. But that still avoids the point. Despite all the benefits of public schools, despite their innovation and high performance results, parents are still choosing to send their children to private schools. They are still exercising choice. They are still rejecting public schools, and Ms. Wilmer doesn't appear to understand why. Or maybe she doesn't care, being beholden herself to special interest funding to the tune of $15,000.) 

You want private schools? Fine. Just don’t ask for taxpayer money to support them.

Rep. Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) has served four terms on the House Education committee and is a full professor at Montana State University.

Federal budget ax hits home, cuts to be felt at Bozeman’s Head Start, MSU, hospital, schools - By Gail Schontzler - commentary

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------
(Prepare yourself for a long foray into the sob stories, the heartstrings emotional manipulation, and the hyper-victimizing of the government beneficiaries impaired by the sequester cuts. Remember, these cuts amount to a 2% reduction in spending, after allowing automatic baseline budgeting increases to be implemented. And most of the cuts are happening to the military.)

Bozeman Head Start teacher Lane Langford shows infinite patience as he herds 4-year-olds into the classroom and gets them settled in tiny chairs so they can draw pictures and sound out words and letters with his help.

“N!” said one little girl in pink. “I did it!”

Langford, a teacher for four years, doesn’t betray any apprehension about news that Head Start in other states has had to shut down classrooms, shorten the school year and cut staff jobs.

“It concerns all of us, we’re so tight as it is,” Langford said. “We’re concerned to see what happens to these awesome kids and their families if we lose even more of our budget.” (Emotional manipulation #1.)

Head Start is just one of many local agencies – from Montana State University to Bozeman Deaconess Hospital and the Bozeman School District – bracing for federal budget cuts.

In the 2011 Budget Control Act, Congress and the president purposefully engineered across-the-board cuts, called the sequester, to be so severe (Severe? Editorial comment. And as we have seen, they're not severe at all.)

– targeting both military and domestic programs with a meat-ax approach (Another pejorative editorial comment.) – that politicians would be forced to find better solutions for balancing the budget.

But Congress failed to find a solution, (As we can see, politicians weren't forced to do anything, and never are when it comes to bringing home the bacon. Every program is crucial, every dollar is needed, every cut hurts women, children, and the poor, no reduction in government is ever a good thing, whether in good times or bad.) 

so the sequester cuts automatically kicked in March 1, and chopped $85 billion from this year’s federal budget. ($85 billion divided by $3.8 trillion is 2%. Oh the pain! How will we survive! This is going to prolong the economic downturn! It's a catastrophe!)

The cuts don’t stop there. The sequester is designed to keep cutting over the next 10 years, to reduce federal spending by more than $1 trillion. (She writes this like it's a bad thing.) “This thing is kind of like a snowball rolling downhill,” said Matt Kelley, Gallatin County’s city county health officer. “As time goes on and Congress fails to find a solution, the impact is likely to be greater.” (I'm liking it even more. It's about time something happened to reduce, even by a little bit, the drunken sailor spending of congress.)

Congress passed last week a last-minute deal to keep the government running through the end of September, thus avoiding a government shutdown next week. Folded into that was money to soften the sequester cuts in several areas. (Where did that money come from? We borrow over 40% of every dollar we spend.)

All the last-minute maneuvering creates uncertainty and confusion for Bozeman-area program managers. (What about the uncertainty and confusion for business owners who don't know what to withhold for their employee's taxes, don't know how much obamacare is going to cost them, and are at the mercy of opportunistic social engineering government types who can't resist tinkering with the financial status of the US?)

Many are still waiting for word from Washington on whether they’ll be cut, by how much and when. (What a sad commentary. So many are so beholden to government programs, government benefits, and/or government jobs that their universe revolves around the next thing that government might or might not do. And not just those who are on the dole. Average citizens are being subjected to an ever-intrusive government impinging on their daily lives, where great portions of their attention, time, effort, and paycheck are devoted to serving governments aims instead of their own.)

“The hardest thing … the last four years is not being able to plan and respond to community needs” because of the uncertainty, said Heather Grenier, chief operations officer for the Human Resource Development Council, which operates such local programs as the Gallatin Valley Food Bank. (Emotional manipulation #2.)

“The sequester is frustrating,” said Mari Dominguez, Bridgercare clinic executive director. “Everyone understands the need to cut expenses… What we’re seeing is a trumping of politics over responsible government, (The last thing Ms. Dominguez is interested in is fiscally responsible government. She just want to keep the cash flowing. And by the way, why is this woman popping up so often these days. Is she that eminently quotable? I discuss her faulty perspectives here.) to make hard decisions about what is essential.” (Emotional manipulation #3.)

Also frustrated are many federal employees, who wonder if they’ll be getting furlough notices, requiring them to take a number of unpaid days at home each pay period -- on top of three straight years of pay freezes, according to the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. (Emotional manipulation #4.)

People on the left and right disagree about the wisdom of the sequester. The White House contends it amounts to a “self-inflicted wound” to the struggling economy, ("Prolong the downturn!!!" Wow, I must be psychic.)

threatens 750,000 jobs (which I doubt.)

and will “cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illness and our men and women in uniform.” (Which I again doubt.)

Conservatives argue the record federal deficit is the nation’s greater danger, that this year’s cuts amount only to $45 billion – the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projection — and that the sequester amounts to little more than a penny for every dollar the federal government spends.

Here are some of the local impacts from the federal sequester cuts: (here are some more sob stories to manipulate your emotions.)

*Head Start is expecting a 5 percent cut, (Where did that number come from? Are they expecting it for some rational reason, or just making a number up?)

said Ken Miller, director of Gallatin and Park counties’ Head Start programs. It serves 168 children in Bozeman, Belgrade, Gallatin Gateway and Livingston, and has a waiting list of about 30 to 50 kids from low-income families. (Emotional manipulation #5.)

“I know we’re going to be cut — I don’t know how much,” Miller said. “They did say as a one-time thing this school year we could close early. …You can’t cut without cutting staff.

“There isn’t a Head Start program in Montana that can cut 5 percent without cutting services, cutting numbers of children and families served.”

* Research at Montana State University, which posted a record $112 million in spending last year, relies heavily on federal dollars. National Institutes of Health grants alone make up one-third to 40 percent of MSU’s research, said Tom McCoy, MSU vice president for research. (Emotional manipulation #6.)

The National Science Foundation put out a notice saying awards that scientists have today shouldn’t be affected, but the sequester is expected to mean no funding for 1,000 new awards. McCoy also heard that Defense Department research grants would be cut 7.2 percent and all other agencies 5.2 percent. (Emotional manipulation #7.)

“The impacts will be felt over time,” McCoy said. “The concern I have is we’re still trying to climb out of the recession and build the economy. I’m a firm believer that university research and development are big contributors to building the economy.”

* MSU student Pell Grants, which provide about $16 million a year to support the neediest college students, won’t be affected in the coming school year, said Jim Rimpau, vice president for student success.

“But after that, it’s anybody’s guess,” Rimpau said. “I think we have to worry about it a lot, because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future.” (Emotional manipulation #8.)

Interest rates on student loans haven’t been affected, but the origination fees are being raised slightly this fall – from 1 to 1.053 percent for student loans and from 4 to 4.2 percent for parent Plus loans.

* MSU’s 539 student veterans on the GI Bill aren’t affected, but 85 students in the National Guard or on active duty who were promised tuition assistance — up to $4,500 a year as a signing incentive from the Defense Department -- were nearly cut off. On Thursday, Congress restored most of the Pentagon’s sequester cuts of tuition assistance. (Emotional manipulation #9.)

“There’s been a big outcry across the nation,” said Brenda York, MSU’s director of disability, reentry and veterans services. 

*At Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, “we expect there could be slightly longer lines” during the busy summer months, said Brian Sprenger, airport director. The federal Transportation Security Administration plans to restrict overtime and not add staff for screening passengers. (Emotional manipulation #10. But notice this is self inflicted. The government took over airport security in the wake of 9/11, and now that these seeeeeevere cuts are being implemented, the already long waits experienced by air travelers [as well as all sorts of other indignities] will be increased.)

Bozeman will keep its control tower, however. The Federal Aviation Administration has put Kalispell and Helena’s airports on a list of potential closures, but not Bozeman’s. 

* For Bozeman Deaconess Hospital and physicians in its health clinics, the federal sequester will mean a 2 percent cut in Medicare payments for patients age 65 and older, said Connie Martin, hospital spokeswoman. (Emotional manipulation #11.)

That translates to about an $800,000 reduction in payments, Martin said. And the hospital says Medicare already pays less than the actual cost of service. (In other words, Medicare already screws up, so it will now be worse.)

“It’s not panic mode,” Martin said. The hospital is always looking for ways to run leaner without hurting patient care, she said. And with the Affordable Care Act kicking in, there may be more patients covered by Medicaid, which covers the poor and disabled. (Oh thank gawd. Government is recklessly spending money elsewhere, creating new bureaucracies, and removing peoples' choices, so that this problem is not so bad....) 

*At Bridgercare, the Bozeman family planning clinic, the federal sequester is expected to cut 5 to 8 percent of federal funds, Dominguez said. That could mean reducing hours, increasing fees and possibly cutting back from being open six to five days a week.

But what looms larger is the Montana House’s decision to cut from the state budget bill all federal funds for family planning clinics, Dominguez said. (Here she is again! Why is this woman given such attention?)

That would slash roughly 20 percent from Bridger Care’s budget if upheld by the Senate. (Emotional manipulation #12.)

“We’d no longer be able to offer zero-pay services,” she said. If contraceptives become too expensive, she said, some people will forgo using them, which will mean more teen pregnancies, poorer health outcomes and more children born into poverty. (So THAT'S the cause of these problems. Who'da thunk that contraceptives are the answer to poverty? 

“I know family planning is effective and improves lives,” Dominguez said. 

 *The Human Resource Development Council runs many programs that rely on federal dollars — low-income housing, emergency shelter, energy assistance, the senior grocery program and summer lunches, Community Café and the homeless warming center.(Emotional manipulation #13.)

About half of HRDC’s budget of roughly $8 million comes from the federal government, Grenier said. A lot is still unknown about what’s at risk of cuts.

“If we have a federal deficit, we want to be part of the solution,” Grenier said. “I don’t think it’s anything we can’t overcome. It does create challenges for a population that’s already struggling.”

Fortunately, as a nonprofit, HRDC can raise private donations and grants, she said. And the Food Bank doesn’t get federal dollars and so shouldn’t be affected by the sequester.

*Community Health Partners, which serves more than 12,000 mostly low-income patients in Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston and West Yellowstone, depends on a $2.5 million federal grant for a major share of its $6.5 million budget, said Buck Taylor, director of community development and operations. That enables it to charge on a sliding scale. (Emotional manipulation #14.)

The sequester’s impact is still unclear, Taylor said. The National Association of Community Health Centers advocacy group in Washington warned two weeks ago of “severe” impacts from the sequester. But last week it reported that the stopgap funding Congress passed last week would increase funding 1.7 percent for health centers.

*Bozeman’s public schools estimate the sequester will cut federal funds next school year by around
$250,000, out of $3.5 million in federal dollars, said Steve Johnson, deputy superintendent. (Emotional manipulation #15.)

Bozeman’s biggest federal programs are Title I to help low-income schools, special education, and professional training money, used to hire teaching coaches.

Johnson said he didn’t think the sequester would mean job losses. A lot depends on what the state Legislature does with school funding.

Budgeting is always difficult in a legislative year, he said. The sequester “adds a little twist to it,” he said.

*The Gallatin City-County Health Department receives several federal grants, including one for public health emergency preparedness, Kelley said. Because of the sequester and other budget cuts, that’s expected to be
reduced from $120,000 to about $100,000. The money is used to train and prepare for such emergencies as earthquakes, fires and flooding. (Emotional manipulation #16.)

“Part of the impact is the uncertainty,” Kelley said. “Until Congress gets its act together, we don’t know. We have to be cautious.”

Combined with cuts from the Legislature, he added, “It’s like a thousand nicks.” (Now he knows how that taxpayer feels.)

Gail Schontzler can be reached at gails@dailychronicle.com or 582-2633.