Partisanship is trickling downward: from the federal stimulus plan; to the race for Montana’s lone U.S. House seat; to the timeline and makeup of the state budget. The political creed – advanced by President Barack Obama – that elected officials would compromise for the good of the country, economy and its constituents’ respective psyches lasted about a month.
Let’s begin with the federal stimulus plan. Opposition to it quickly turned into a rallying cry for D.C. Republicans who have been searching desperately for something to rally around. They basically are banking on it not working and brightening their reelection prospects, otherwise they would have all voted against former President Bush’s original bank bailout, right?
Congressional Democrats have gone from offering an olive branch to its opposition – if tax cuts can be considered an olive branch – to pounding their respective chests about the urgency of the roughly $900-billion bill (as of last week). Even Obama has shed his Zen-like persona and scolded the GOP. Meanwhile, we continue to wait for someone to tell us how exactly this whole stimulus thing is going to work.
Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican, has been a vocal opponent of the bill, calling it “an unprecedented attempt to advance the interests of very few special interest groups at the expense of hardworking taxpayers.” After voting against it, he did strike a bipartisan tone, saying, “Congress must work together as President Obama has asked, and there are workable solutions we can bring to the table.”
That wasn’t good enough for Montana Democratic Party Chairman Dennis McDonald, who has spent the last several weeks going for the incumbent’s jugular. He lambasted Rehberg for opposing the measure, calling it a “vote against Montana” and a “selfish refusal to clean up the mess he helped create.” He didn’t stop there.
McDonald said Rehberg’s wealth made him “oblivious” to what the stimulus package would mean to average Montanans and brought up, seemingly out of nowhere, a five-year-old story alleging that Rehberg fell off a stolen horse while drunk in Kazakhstan. It was beginning to appear McDonald had ulterior motives, which he did. He subsequently filed to run for Rehberg’s seat in 2010.
The Republicans have returned fire, by blasting out e-mails called, “McDonald’s Question of the Day.” One asked: “Does Dennis McDonald believe spending $335 million on sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs will stimulate the economy?”
Since this campaign has kicked off with accusations of drunken horse accidents and tying support for the economic stimulus to STD prevention, it’s impossible to predict what material the candidates will drum up by November 2010. But it seems certain Rehberg may have a tougher re-election campaign on his hands than he did in 2008.
And finally, there is the Montana budget and the shifting sands of its revenue forecasts. Overall, the state is in great shape. We’re not bordering on bankruptcy, like California, and instead are projecting an ever-shrinking surplus.
The parties here are divided on how much to spend, which is par for the course during a legislative session. But it’s worse than that.
Last week state Republicans and Democrats couldn’t even agree on how much money the state will have when it does begin crafting its budget. Dems want to use Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s figures and the GOP prefers the prediction worked up by legislative staffers, a more conservative figure. The Legislature can’t begin its budget work until it agrees on a number. But still more lawmakers want to wait to see how much cash the state will get from the federal stimulus plan.
Montana’s portion of that plan was pegged at $685 million last week. But that number could change, and may be larger or smaller by the time you read this. The number aside, passing the largest bill in the nation’s history has polarized Washington, and it didn’t take long for that partisan behavior-as-usual to spread to Helena.
I miss January already.