As a member of the Senate Finance and Claims Committee during the 2025 session, I was there for every budget debate, both in committee and on the floor. Term limits have me stepping away from Senate District 14, so I can speak plainly, without worrying about a campaign.
A recent editorial column featured a “17% budget explosion” untruth and a rehashed mischaracterization of why members of the House and Senate banded together with Democrats to vote on important finance and budget bills. Carl Glimm’s fiscal math and session history could use some work.
First, let’s talk (again) about the real issues the nine Senate Republicans fought for during the last session.
Prior to session even starting, Sen. Glimm and his allies created a first-of-its-kind baseless and useless committee, called the Executive Review Committee, and tried to park rural legislators there like unwanted equipment in the back of the shop. Why? So, we wouldn’t be on the committees where votes matter, like the Finance and Claims Committee. They also didn’t want us bringing critical rural bills to the floor for debate, like rural health care, rural bridges, and rural schools to name just a few important to my district and constituents. That wasn’t “reform,” that was rigging the process to ensure rural Montana issues weren’t heard.
So yes, rural Republicans pushed back. We joined with Democrats to adopt fairer rules, restore seniority-based assignments, and expand Finance and Claims so the workload and representation were balanced. That wasn’t to hijack the process; it was to refuse the Freedom Caucus from overloading committees to ensure votes went their way. Experienced rural voices refused to be sidelined.
Now, the money.
Sen. Glimm’s headline number in his recent article is a 17% increase in general fund appropriations in HB 2. That sounds dramatic until you do what responsible people do, which is to compare apples-to-apples.
The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Division (LFD), required by state law to provide an accurate apples-to-apples comparison, measures total biennial budget growth at about 0.7% when accounting for all funds. That 0.7% is the real bottom line. It’s below inflation and population growth and reflects the reality that federal COVID-era money has tapered off. The 17% headline is a cherry-picked number.
One example: transfers into the Wildfire Suppression Fund. Sen. Glimm counts those general fund transfers as “new spending.” Then, when DNRC actually uses that wildfire money to fight fires, buy equipment, or do mitigation, it gets counted again in broader spending totals. That’s double-counting the same dollars.
If you move money from your checking account to savings, you didn’t “spend” it twice. You set it aside for a vacation you and your wife have been planning, or when wildfire season turns ugly. Montana’s wildfire seasons can blow up fast, and bad years can cost tens of millions; the wildfire reserve is smart budgeting. Building reserves prevents mid-crisis budget reconfiguring, which could impact schools, public safety, and other local priorities. Interest earned on these reserve dollars even flow back to the general fund as a small rebate. Calling that “explosive growth” isn’t honest fiscal analysis.
The same spin shows up with the property tax rebates. Sen. Glimm calls the $750 and $400 rebates “budget increases.” They’re not government growth; they’re refunds sent back to homeowners to help them with rising costs. We delivered major property tax relief to the large majority of Montanans while keeping overall spending growth tight. That’s what conservatism actually looks like: relief for taxpayers, disciplined budgets, and no runaway bureaucracy.
And one more reality check: The deep line-by-line work of HB 2 happened in the House Appropriations Committee under leaders like Rep. Llew Jones. John Fitzpatrick from House District 76 also did a great job hammering out some of the challenges with that bill. That’s where the budget gets built, in committee, and where the serious scrutiny occurred. If Sen. Glimm or others truly believed HB 2 was some reckless spending spree, why did the Senate debate it for roughly two hours? I was there. It moved quickly, with limited amendments or opposition.
Ultimately, this session was about governing fairly and responsibly in a state where neighbors still depend on each other and many of us live rurally. We held spending growth to about 0.7%, returned real money to taxpayers, and prepared for real-world problems like wildfire.
Montanans deserve facts over fiction. Let’s stick to straight talk and solid numbers. As always, stay safe. [email protected]
Sen. Russ Tempel, R-Chester, represents Senate District 14 until December 2026, and served on the Senate Finance and Claims Committee. He is term-limited and not seeking re-election