This week I have taken a look at some of the candidates appearing on the 2010 ballot and made some endorsements. Here was the agenda:
Monday: Montana House and Senate (Click HERE to read)
Tuesday: A few local races (Click HERE to read).
Wednesday: U.S. House, State Supreme Court, PSC District #1 (Click HERE to read)
Today, I take a look at the Ballot Issues.
On the back of my 2010 ballot there are four ballot issues. This election, they are pretty boring in my humble opinion.
They are:
1. Constitutional Convention Call No. 2 (They have to ask this every 20 years)
2. Constitutional Initiative 105 (No new taxes on the sale or transfer of real property)
3. Initiative No. 161 (Revises laws related to nonresident big game and deer hunting licenses)
4. Initiative No. 164 (Reduces the interest, fees, and charges of payday loans, title lenders, etc.)
Thankfully, the state publishes a Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP) that explains these ballot issues in more detail. You can read it online HERE (PDF).
If you are looking for something to help you sleep, the VIP may just be the cure.
In making my endorsements of these ballot issues and besides reading the VIP from front to back, I also look at who writes the “proponent” and “opponent” arguments for each ballot issue in the pamphlet. Sometimes you can tell the angle of a ballot issue just by seeing who writes the opponent and proponent language. Some of the folks you may even know and like or dislike.
So let’s take a look at them.
Constitutional Convention Call No. 2 (CC-2):
The basic assertion with this ballot issue is whether or not the state of Montana should rewrite the state’s constitution. Those wanting us to vote FOR a constitutional convention say our state constitution is “deeply flawed” “self-contradictory” and “unworkable.” Those who want us to vote AGAINST a constitutional convention say “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”
In my opinion, it would be a waste of taxpayer money to vote for constitutional convention. Our state will probably face some red ink this next term. They must balance the budget (that’s in the constitution) and spending money on something like this is a waste of taxpayer money, so I will be voting against this ballot issue.
Constitutional Initiative 105 (CI-105):
A day after receiving my ballot, I received a glossy flyer paid for by Montana taxpayer, business, and realtor coalition to prevent double taxation telling me that some Montana politicians want me to pay more in taxes. They urge me to vote yes on Constitutional Initiative (CI) 105.
Let’s face it; there are several lawmakers who want to tax us to death. Many are Democrats. They also like to impose “fees” on things like licenses, soda pop, etc., and they look us in the eyes and tell us they did not raise our taxes. But they place fees on things to raise money – kind of a hidden tax. They probably giggle after lying to us, too.
We pay too many taxes (or fees) already. So, this ballot issue is pretty easy for me; I will be voting FOR CI-105 which will amend the Montana Constitution to prohibit state or local governments from imposing any new tax on transactions that sell or transfer real property.
Initiative No. 161 (I-161):
Speaking of fees, this Initiative (if passed) increases fees on nonresident big game licenses. The last deer I killed was with my vehicle. I still have a cache of guns, but I gave up hunting many years ago for several reasons.
I have nothing against out-of-state folks hunting in Montana. In fact, it’s good for the economy and business. This initiative will hinder that and probably cost the state some money. I will be voting against I-161.
Initiative No. 164 (I-164):
Fortunately, I have never been in a situation where I had to use a payday or title loan lender. Some of the folks supporting a vote FOR I-164 say they get hit in the face with so many payday lender businesses in Montana. I guess they fail to see how many casinos hit us in the face as we drive through Montana towns, but I digress.
People who use payday or title loans are already in a world of financial hurt when they walk through the door. They are in a vulnerable situation. Reducing the annual interest, fees, and charges payday, title and retail installment lenders and consumer loan licensees may charge on loans to 36 percent seems like a reasonable thing to do. I will be voting for FOR I-164.
In review, here are my endorsements:
Constitutional Convention Call No. 2 (CC-2): AGAINST
Constitutional Initiative 105 (CI-105): FOR
Initiative No. 161 (I-161): AGAINST
Initiative No. 164 (I-164): FOR
Thanks for reading and comments are welcome.
The Western Word 
The Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,”
But with HB 195, the 1995 Republican controlled Montana Legislature decided that some men are more equal than others and one Montana business deserves special treatment. In a good intentioned, but misguided move (some say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions), the Legislature created the Outfitter Set-aside Licenses (OSL) to provide funding for the Hunter Management Program recommended by the Private Lands/Public Wildlife (PLPW) committee. Rather than call it a Hunter Management Program as it is defined to be, Block Management was likely considered the more politically acceptable term as Americans and more particularly Montanans don’t like to be “managed”. The effect of HB 195 was to create a cash cow for Montana Outfitters, numbering over 1,000 in 2005 according to stop161. Making for outfitters a ready and waiting client list of non-residents with a pocket full of money who are more than willing to pay-to-play, to pay not only for tags but for exclusive access.
While looking over the current Voter Information Pamphlet, I wondered who the opponents doing the rebuttal against I-161 were. State Senator Jim Peterson is a Republican from Buffalo, MT, State Representative Mike Milburn is a Republican from Cascade, MT, Mac Minard is the Executive Director of the Montana Outfitter and Guides Association (MOGA), and Brett Todd is on the 2010 MOGA Executive Board as President – Elect and an outfitter working out of Big Timber (Klazy3 Outfitters).
In Montana the Outfitting Industry existed prior to 1995 without the OSL and will likely continue its business existence upon passage of I-161. Their dire predictions of lost revenue, if it occurs, will be more likely attributed to our ever growing wolf problem and that effect on (declining) game populations rather than as a result of the loss of their OSL cash cow.
HB 195 did not solve the problem of access in Montana.
HB 195 missed the point which was not how can we deal with private land interests, but how we can increase access to our public lands increasingly blocked by private land interests. In an effort to compromise, large amounts of money were introduced into the equation, further complicating but not solving the access issue. Should a private land holder, with personal access to multiple sections, in some cases several square miles, of state and federal lands (public lands) in their ranch leases, that are blocked to public access by deeded acres at entry points, opt for the $12,000 that Hunter Management would pay or take the more lucrative option of charging sums like a $10,000 exclusive access fee for a group of (4) hunters to harvest an illegal elk as we saw in West Central Montana a few years ago?
Only two such groups of hunters would put him $8,000 ahead of the BMP (Block Mgmt Program).
Lets not be fooled by the claims of the anti I-161 crowd, those are only tears falling for a cash-cow and not the sky falling after all. Let’s show that in Montana we do believe all men are created equal and declare Montana’s independence from the OSL by Voting for I-161. And then we can get to work on another important issue, controlling an out-of-control wolf population and restoring our new Endangered Species the Montana Deer and Elk populations.
Good info. Thank you. -Jack
Pingback: Caught My Eye… « The Western Word
You realize that by supporting I-164 you are putting these lending businesses out of business. Thanks for supporting the overregulation of business and the demise of jobs. You and Obama are a couple of peas in the pod.
Thanks for your comments. I especially liked the part about Obama and me being alike. -Jack