Page 30 - Flathead Beacon // 4.13.16

LIKE I WAS SAYIN’
TWO FOR THOUGHT SAME TOPIC, DIFFERENT VIEWS LOOKING TOWARD THE PRIMARIES
KELLYN BROWN
THE NEW BUSINESS LOBBY
FIVE DAYS AFTER NORTH CAROLINA’S GOVER- nor announced that online-payment company PayPal would be building a new global operations center in Charlotte, the state passed a “religious free- dom” bill that prevents its cities and counties from pass- ing their own anti-discrimination rules, dealing a blow to the LGBT movement.
Supporters say it’s common-sense legislation, and focused on language in Charlotte’s recently passed anti-discrimination law that, among other things, allowed transgender people to use the bathroom aligned with their identity.
PayPal, however, sided with critics who say the North Carolina law perpetuates discrimination. It canceled plans for the new $3.6 million operations center, which would have employed 400 people. The company’s CEO and President Dan Schulman told USA Today that locat- ing in the state “where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable.”
Lionsgate, a California-based entertainment com- pany that had planned to shoot a pilot for a comedy series in North Carolina, changed locations due to the law. New Jersey-based Braeburn Pharmaceuticals is now recon- sidering building a facility there. A handful of states, including Washington, have banned o cial travel to The Tar Heel State.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and U.S. Sen. Jon Tester sent a letter to Schulman, commending his decision and encouraging him to “choose Montana for this and any other future expansions of PayPal’s operations.” While that is unlikely, the Democrats pitched a “rich quality of life (that) matches our business climate.”
For his part, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said through a spokesperson that the backlash is a “well-co- ordinated, national campaign to smear our state’s repu- tation after we passed a common-sense law.”
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage last year, conservative lawmakers in several states across the country have pushed back with laws similar to North Carolina’s. Big businesses, especially tech companies that often rely on a young and diverse workforce and are headquartered in liberal cities, have increasingly exercised their newfound clout.
Along with PayPal, Apple and Facebook objected to the North Carolina law. And, according to the New York Times, Google Venture’s chief executive Bill Maris “pledged not to make any new investments in the state until the law is overturned.”
During Montana’s last legislative session, a religious freedom law was narrowly defeated in the House when lawmakers deadlocked 50-50. Similar legislation will almost certainly surface next session and, more immi- nently, the issue is being debated in the governor’s race.
Montana Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Gianforte, the founder of software company RightNow Technologies, opposed a nondiscrimination ordinance Bozeman passed in 2014. In an email to Bozeman city commissioners, he wrote, “Homosexual advocates try to argue that businesses are leery of locating in towns that aren’t friendly to homosexuals. I believe the oppo- site is true.”
But in an interview with the Bozeman Daily Chroni- cle last week, Gianforte said through a spokesperson he wouldn’t pursue religious liberty legislation.
What’s changed?
For one, along with tax and regulation policy, corpo- rations are lobbying states over social issues they believe are unfriendly to their workforce and, subsequently, unfriendly to their respective bottom lines.
BY JOE CARBONARI
Talk politics. Yes, arguments may ensue. The risk, though, is worth it. Our primary elections are less than eight weeks away. Unfortunately, many voters really don’t have a clue.
Friends and family are fair game. Help them understand. If they remain confused, just tell them how you think they should vote ... in a quiet, understanding way.
Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders are all risky, but to di erent degrees and in di er- ent ways. Trump is portraying himself as a buf- foonish egotist who is high on testosterone. He entertains in a nasty way. He is woefully unsuited for the job. His supporters should know that this impression is held widely in the world of those that should know and care. He is not acceptable by his performance or as an example.
Ted Cruz is also bad. He is a scammer of true-believers and their tendency to ask too little and trust too much. He has not been a nice player in the Senate sandbox. Nor has he been e ective. Still, he is less risky than Trump. He knows the game.
Bernie is safer still. I respect Vermonters. They are not easily fooled or frivolous. They respect and trust him. Some fear that he will shift emphasis towards the middle class too rapidly and derail our economy. I think possible, but not likely.
BY TIM BALDWIN
People have mixed views about state primary elec-
tions for president. Since our constitutions do not gov- ern this election, states have developed their own pro- cedures, which have mostly favored the major political parties and are indirect elections, whereby delegates are sent to a convention to elect the candidates for the par- ties. Good or bad?
Political parties are perhaps necessary and arise from human nature but have inherent dangers to a democratic society. Parties, in some respects, have more power than the people at large, and when a few delegates vote for the candidates, the parties’ in uence over the election is compounded.
Once elected by delegates, the people are essentially pigeon-holed into voting for one of two candidates in the general election, regardless of the people’s preferment. Add to this, incumbents typically face no opposition of the party because the chances of winning increase expo- nentially. This further entrenches the parties’ power over the people’s will.
Thus, primary election reform has been underway for years. Its advocates argue that primary elections should be determined by the voters, not delegates, because it better re ects societies’ ideas, incentivizes parties to adjust their priorities, and encourages mass voter participation.
The results of this reform, however, are unknown because they are largely untested. Regardless, if politics is an ongoing experiment (and it is), Americans should test di erent approaches given the obvious displeasure most have with our current political state.
AMERICAN RURAL DIANE SMITH
HIGHER WAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
S
compensated wouldn’t they also be able to a ord pric- ier housing?
Across America, from New York City to White sh, the topic of a ordable housing is big. But have you noticed how often the discussion gets shifted away from the business bottom line (employee compensa- tion) to the taxpayers’ bottom line (i.e., housing/devel- opment subsidies)?
This isn’t a plug for legislating a minimum wage increase or ignoring the a ordable housing problem. It is a reminder that we should all pay greater attention these days to whose pockets we’re lining.
Political and business leaders from big and small cities nationwide have recently acknowledged that his- torically “liberal” policies limiting density and height resulted in the unintended consequence of also limit- ing a ordable housing. Ouch.
Far left New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote recently, “(B)ig cities ... could comfortably hold quite a few more families than they do. The reason they don’t is that rules and regulations block construction.” Here in our own backyard, White sh City Councilor Andy Feury said, “We can throw study after study ... at this (a ordable housing) problem and we are going to end up at the same place ... unless we as a community change our mindset and are open to having density.”
You know what else would help? Higher wages.
The mostly left-leaning White sh City Council, in an e ort to help business owners avoid the hefty wage
increases necessary to o set rising housing costs, is about to spend $60,000 of taxpayer money on an a ordable housing study. But they’re good at shift- ing business burdens onto taxpayers. They’ve done it before.
The new White sh City Hall and parking garage is a good example. White sh’s downtown business owners had a problem – limited parking. Somehow the White- sh City Council was persuaded that the lack of down- town parking was a “community” problem that should be solved with a taxpayer-funded garage.
White sh City Council denied repeated requests to put the $16 million structure up for a vote. So now, White sh’s downtown business owners get to reap the rewards of a taxpayer-funded parking garage that will be mostly used by tourists whose dollars support – you guessed it – downtown business owners! Perhaps then a few of these businesses might be willing to pony up su cient wages for their employees so they can a ord to live in White sh? Just saying.
I wholeheartedly agree that a ordable housing is a worthy goal of communities. But maybe political lead- ers should spend more e ort protecting ordinary tax- payers than subsidizing businessfolk. And, if White sh employers truly can’t a ord to pay employees a living wage (as documented by hard data, which hopefully will be part of the $60,000 housing study), then let’s deal with that. But, before we heedlessly o oad yet another mostly corporate problem onto the backs of overtaxed residents, shouldn’t we all get real clear on whose problem we’re actually solving?
Diane Smith is the founder and CEO of American Rural.
INCE WHEN DID AFFORDABLE HOUSING become a taxpayer problem and not an employer
problem? After all, if employees were better
30
APRIL 13, 2016 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM