While Representative Rehberg was voting entirely for the sake of the press yesterday, Senators Tester and Baucus were working to do something to restore fairness to America’s tax system—voting to end massive tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. The measure was designed to encourage development of alternative energy and reduce the deficit:

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., would target more than $2 billion in annual tax subsidies to the so-called Big Five oil companies — BP, Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips.

Had the measure passed Congress, about half of the $24 billion in savings over 10 years would have been reinvested in tax breaks for biodiesel, wind, cellulosic ethanol and energy-efficiency programs.The other half would have been used to reduce the federal deficit.

Now Senate Republicans who killed the measure argue that these ending these tax breaks to oil companies would increase the price of gas at the pump. As is usually the case, though, they ignored the evidence. The Congressional Research Service says that’s simply not true:

For the purpose of economic analysis, the repeal of the Section 199 deduction is equivalent to an increase in the tax on corporate profit. It is widely accepted that a proportional change in taxes on profit affects neither the firm’s incremental costs or revenues, and therefore does not change its behavior with respect to output.  Since output does not change, there is little reason to believe that the price of oil, or gasoline, consumers face will increase.

No one here argues with the idea that industry should be able to make a profit, but it’s hard to accept a system which allows massive, multinational oil companies to pay a much lower rate of taxes than small businesses pay. I think that the five big oil companies have probably reached a point at which they no longer need tax incentives to survive. I suspect they’ll survive with $125 billion in annual profits just fine.

But it was those corporations that Senate Republicans voted to defend yesterday. Not Main Street, not family-run businesses, but massive corporations who recorded $137 billion in profits last year. It’s little wonder that Republicans have received 88 per cent of oil and gas contributions this election cycle.

Does anyone have any doubt about how Representative Rehberg would have voted yesterday, given the $450,000 he has received from the oil and gas industry during his do-nothing career, including $141,000 in this cycle alone?

Melinda Gopher announced on Facebook this evening that she will not be running in 2012 for the U.S. House.  Instead, she plans to “oust” Senator Baucus in 2014.

I wouldn’t hold your breath.  A year ago Gopher was threatening to challenge Tester, then she announced a run for the House.  Now the plan is to hold off until 2014 to challenge a different Senator.

Politico had a very interesting piece today regarding our senior Senator and K Street Lobbyists.

Democrats on K Street are warning their corporate clients: Give to Republican challengers in the 2012 election, and you’ll regret it come tax reform time.

Lobbyists are getting that message from allies of powerful Democrats such as Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is closely watching support for Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican challenging Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). Baucus supporters fear that if Rehberg ousts Tester, Baucus could be next to face a serious Republican challenge in the state.

One K-Streeter close to the Baucus operation said the senator considers a gift to Rehberg a contribution against him. Another Democratic lobbyist told a client to take his name off a Rehberg fundraising event because it would be hurtful to his company, according to sources.

The case K-Streeters are making to their clients: It will be a hard sell next year to get Baucus’s support on business-friendly tax perks set to expire or the Bush-era tax cuts that must get through his committee.

The game of hardball is a bold example of a powerful chairman willing to leverage his power to protect his party’s majority, his home-state colleague and potentially his own seat.

You can read the entire article here.  While many members of the Democratic Party may not always agree with Sen. Baucus and positions he has taken in the past, it’s ridiculous to argue that he is not whole-heartily dedicated the Montana Democratic Party.

Whether it’s bundling money for Democratic candidates in the state or using “hardball” tactics to protect Senator Tester from a tsunami of K Street money, one thing is clear: Sen. Baucus will go to bat for Montana’s Democrats.  And that should be applauded.

While Senate Republicans are blocking progress on the critical highway bill to continue their war on women in the form of the Blunt Amendment, Senator Baucus stood firm for health care coverage that impacts 62,000 Montana women. Speaking against the Amendment, Baucus said:

“The current policy preserves the integrity of a woman’s right to access health care services while also protecting the legitimate religious liberties that so many Americans – myself included – value.  However, the Blunt Amendment would allow any company to deny health care options to deny access to any service for any moral objection.  In Montana we’re very proud to have sent the first woman to Congress in 1916 – Jeanette Rankin. We have a strong tradition of respecting women and supporting women’s health. When we support women’s health, we are supporting healthy communities that can be strong for our kids and grandkids.”

Another version of his direct remarks to the Senate is available on YouTube:

Republicans have simply gone too far. In their efforts to demonize Planned Parenthood, family planning, and personal autonomy for women, they’ve turned their sights on basic access to care—under the guise of religious freedom, a freedom which seems only to extend to their right to impose their religious views on others.

Not only is Representative Rehberg championing the right of corporations to pollute Montana politics, he’s benefiting financially from those who were responsible for the Supreme Court decision to allow limitless, secret corporate contributions to campaigns:

In a news release, Tester’s campaign will point out that Rehberg accepted a $10,000 donation from the conservative group Citizens United, the plaintiff in the controversial Supreme Court decision, on Sept. 21.  Tester believes that decision “undermines democracy” and supports overturning it through a constitutional amendment.

For 100 years, Montana has protected its political process from the pernicious influence of corporations. We saw firsthand the dangers corporate control of politics as people like William Clark bought their way into the US Senate, using corporate wealth to fuel his rise to power.

A century later, Montana has a candidate for the Senate who is not only advocating an ahistorical “right” for corporations to access the Bill of Rights and undermine Montana law, but taking money from the very corporate interests responsible for this absurd Supreme Court decision.

Representative Rehberg was wrong. Montanans have been right on this issue for 100 years.

Rehberg certainly hasn’t been shy about promoting constitutional amendments for frivolous, political causes. Surely he should support one, like Jon Tester and Max Baucus do, that would actually protect the integrity of our political process.

Senator Tester and Senator Baucus are standing up for Montana’s law and the relatively obvious idea that free speech rights attach to people, not multinational corporations, reports KXLH’s Marnee Banks.

Representative Rehberg, on the other hand, likes the idea of massive corporate polluting the electoral process:

Congressman Denny Rehberg won’t support the amendment. He says a healthy democracy is made up of many voices.

“I don’t think we should deny people their Constitutional right to free speech just because they’re part of a corporation instead of a different form of organization like a non-profit, a campaign or a union,” Rehberg says.

It’s probably not too difficult to understand why Rehberg feels this way, give the reciprocal love he enjoys with corporations of all kinds.

In another note, Rehberg claimed that he believed that “all campaign contributions should be posted online within 24 hours.”

Well, then, Mr. Rehberg, why don’t you do it? It seems that a man who believes in transparency and immediate disclosure of campaign contributions should the lead and start doing it.

by Gabriel Furshong

More so than any other landscape in Big Sky Country, Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front derives its wonder from a violent juxtaposition of geological forms. The Front is the convergence of two mega-ecosystems that together cover roughly a quarter of our country — the Northern Plains and the Northern Rockies.

This is where each seemingly limitless region reaches its limit. Within this thin strip roams the second-largest elk herd in the Lower 48, as well as 13 species of raptor and a third of all plant species known in Montana. It’s the only place south of the Canadian border where grizzlies still den between the peaks and the prairie.

For 100 years, this landscape has been the subject of vigorous debate over the limits of acceptable change. Montanans along the Front have fought back wave after wave of oil and gas exploration.  It is a measure of their success that the battle cry of each generation has gradually shifted from our grandparents and great-grandparents, who wanted to "return it to the way it was," to our parents and ourselves, who now want to "keep it the way it is."

This last phrase — keep it the way it is  — has for 10 years been the unofficial motto of the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, a loose affiliation of outfitters, ranchers, farmers, community organizers, business owners and outdoor enthusiasts. Thanks to this coalition, the debate over change on the Front is now closer to resolution than ever before.

Last October, Montana Sen. Max Baucus introduced the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, which would designate 67,000 acres of wilderness and prohibit road building or any expansion of motorized use on an additional 210,000 acres. That’s big news. Yet, the relative calm with which the news was received has been surprising. Only five or six years ago, the most common bumper sticker on pickup trucks nosed up to the curb at John Henry’s bar and restaurant in Choteau, read: "Drill It!" But when I asked a veteran writer and former journalist for the Missoulian newspaper what he thought about the media coverage of Baucus’ announcement, all he could say was, "I just don’t understand why it hasn’t gotten more attention."

His words followed me to the Front where I retreated for a hunting trip just a week after the announcement. While waiting on white-tailed deer that seemed wiser and a bit more cautious than they did last year, I found myself reflecting on the twists and turns of our local debate over change. I wondered why this pending resolution has been received so quietly after so much time and such a lot of fuss.

The coalition’s many predecessors fought seemingly endless battles for the better part of a century, from the near-extinction of the buffalo and other species to agency road building and aggressive oil and gas exploration. Our first victory finally came in 2006, when Republican Sen. Conrad Burns and Democratic Sen. Max Baucus banned all leasing of federal minerals along the Front. Forest Service travel plan decisions that followed in 2007 and 2009 emphasized traditional use over motorized recreation, and suddenly, a once-complicated landscape was largely cleared of competing interests. We had a chance to catch our breath long enough to view the landscape with an eye for opportunities rather than obstacles.

It was then that farmers and ranchers affiliated with the coalition raised an important question: Would we have the restraint to avoid becoming agents of change ourselves? Over the next four years, we interviewed grazing permittees, argued with county commissioners, developed alliances, held meetings of 100 people and meetings of 10 people, and sought out hundreds of kitchen-table conversations, one person at a time.

We drew boundaries in pencil, then with a pen, then with pencil again, and eventually with a marker. We nearly fell out with each other several times, but we hung onto the ideal of restraint. In the end, it was not just the landscape that we chose to the keep the way it was. We chose to maintain all existing uses as well, including motorized and bicycle use alongside traditional horse and hiker travel.

So after going through so much, it’s understandable that this final stage in the fight is underwhelming. Indeed, the only evident opposition to the Heritage Act so far came in the form of an indignant email from a small western Montana environmental group decrying the legislation as containing far too few wilderness acres. I mentioned this to a Vietnam veteran and local lawyer from Choteau, Mont., when I ran into him on my hunting trip. As he trailed his horse around me, he just shook his head and said, "Well, we’ve had that debate a million times before."

Yes, we have, and with any luck it won’t change a thing.

Gabriel Furshong is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He worked to preserve the Rocky Mountain Front from 2006-2009 while living in Choteau; he now lives in Missoula.

While thousands of Montanans are facing the prospect of losing their local post offices, Representative Dennis Rehberg simply isn’t interested in doing his job and helping them, as Mike Dennison notes in today’s Missoulian:

Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican, is not committing yet to any specific bill or legislative solution, saying he wants to work with USPS "to find a workable solution that we can live all live with," to avoid unnecessary closures.

To be fair, Rehberg has been quite consumed by politicizing a statue of Jesus on federal land, but to do nothing but talk when rural Montana risk losing local mail service and all Montanans face slower, less efficient delivery, hurting small businesses and costing jobs, is beyond the Rehbergian norm for inaction.

It’s instructive to contrast Rehberg’s inaction with his rhetoric. Just two months ago, he told Montanans that preserving postal service was critical:

…rural states like Montana should not be asked to shoulder more than our fair share of sacrifice.  I am extremely concerned that the proposed closure of over 90 offices in the state unfairly impacts rural residents.  The distance between our towns and cities, the unpredictable nature of our weather, and the needs of our businesses and senior citizens to receive both packages and medication in a timely manner all factor into why a town’s local post office serves as a vital link to the rest of the state and the country.

I’d say something “vital” to the economic and physical health of our neighbors is worth more than vague promises issued in pro forma press releases. It’s time for Representative Rehberg to do something. Anything.

It’s only worse when one remembers that Representative Rehberg helped create this problem when he and the Republican-controlled Congress created the USPS’s fiscal crisis in 2006.

So what about Senators Baucus and Tester? Working for Montanans:

On Friday, Baucus and Tester and 16 other Democrats sent a letter to Senate leadership asking Congress to include language in an appropriation bill to postpone any USPS closures for at least six months. The moratorium would give Congress a chance to pass reform to help the Postal Service solve its financial woes.

Baucus also has introduced a bill that would return the $7 billion retirement surplus to the USPS, as well as forbid closure of any post office that is more than 10 miles away from another post office.

Words are cheap, Representative Rehberg. How about rolling up your sleeves and putting in some work to protect Montana’s rural communities and businesses?