The curious debate over whether the Montana Legislature should pass so-called “nullification” bills has largely focused on whether the federal government is encroaching too far on individual and state rights. But our elected officials continue to prove that their arguments for passing such legislation are at once selective and biased.
Those pushing for nullification of everything from the Endangered Species Act to food safety laws have said, “our job is make sure the citizens of Montana are not trampled on.” That’s fine. If you don’t like the federal government’s rules, don’t take its money.
And the GOP-led House budget plan does just that. It rejects $120 million in federal money that would benefit health care assistance for children and food stamps for the poor. Republicans fear the state may be obligated to continue funding the programs and can’t afford to. It also may be more be difficult to nullify federal laws if you reap the benefits of its cash. Oh, wait …
As The Policy Institute reported earlier this month, many of the same lawmakers who have voted to reject subsidies for social services have long benefitted from federal dollars for their farm operations.
Flathead Republicans have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal money – as have countless other farmers across the country. Of course, subsidies are partly in place to ensure a predictable food supply. But Rep. Janna Taylor, R-Dayton, a recipient of more than $1 million in farm payments over a 15-year period, argued, “I can control state tax dollars, but I can’t control federal tax dollars.” Except isn’t that exactly what the House budget does? Control federal dollars?
Still, critics can contend The Policy Institute is a left-leaning organization simply trying to make conservative farmers look bad.
Noted. Let’s instead look at the non-reaction among the majority of lawmakers in the wake of raids on several medical marijuana dispensaries across the state. To be sure, the feds will likely make a compelling case that many of these shops were involved in illegal activity. But lest we forget the legislation proposed this session requiring federal authorities to get permission from local law enforcement before making an arrest, search or seizure in Montana.
During the debate surrounding the proposed bill, which has since been gutted, we were warned about the long arm of the feds. Except when that arm reached out and raided businesses (that despite their controversial nature were legitimized by the state’s voters), there was little more than a peep from conservatives with previously expressed concerns about federal meddling.
Imagine if the federal authorities challenged the state’s “Firearms Freedom Act,” which was passed in 2009 and exempts guns manufactured and sold in Montana from federal rules. Now imagine if federal agencies raided shops that sold those guns. I bet lawmakers would have an opinion on that.
In Washington, D.C., Congressman Denny Rehberg has proposed an amendment to deny funds for the new federal health care reform. It’s a popular gesture to combat a wildly unpopular law in Montana. But the secretary of Health and Human Services has warned if Congress passes the legislation it would prevent millions of seniors from receiving Medicare payments.
Rehberg, an admitted “reformed earmarker,” has traditionally ranked highly on the list of lawmakers who request the most federal pork dollars – that is, until those dollars became politically toxic.
The painful reality is that Montana has historically raked in far more federal dollars than it pays, a “redistribution of wealth” from which we have benefitted for decades. If we want to have a discussion about asserting state sovereignty by closely scrutinizing those dollars and rules that often accompany them, I welcome that. But that’s not what this debate is about. It’s an argument driven far more by ideology than fear of the feds.