Page 26 - Flathead Beacon // 4.29.15

26 | APRIL 29, 2015
LIKE I WAS SAYIN’ Kellyn Brown
Leveling M Economy
ONTANA’S JOBLESS RATE FELL TO 4.1 percent in March and, for many, that number is hard to fathom. It’s the lowest rate since 2007 and
more promising because rates are low in counties across much of the state, not just eastern Montana, where munic- ipalities have benefited from jobs on the nearby Bakken.
Metropolitan areas of the state, most in western Mon- tana, have also seen their rates plummet. Gallatin County, home to Bozeman, has a 3.3 percent jobless rate, an ex- traordinarily low level. Yellowstone County, home to Bill- ings, has a rate of 3.6 percent. Lewis and Clark County, home to Helena, has a rate of 3.8 percent. In fact, of the state’s six most populated counties, only Flathead has a rate above 4.5 percent.
While our local rate is considerably higher, at 6.8 per- cent, it has also continued to fall and is far removed from the years following the recession when the jobless rate would consistently surpass 10 percent. These numbers, of course, don’t factor in those who are underemployed or who have given up looking for work altogether. But there are two sides to that coin.
In a story we published last month, the Flathead Job Service reported over 500 job orders compared to just a few dozen during months in 2011. And with an economy that relies heavily on tourism, service industry positions are widely available and can be difficult to fill. It’s common to hear local employers complain about the lack of quality applicants. Meanwhile, job seekers bemoan the wages in the state, which, on average, are some of the lowest in the country.
Over the previous several years, many locals headed east toward greener pastures and bigger paychecks. They worked on rigs in North Dakota and eastern Montana. But the migration to the Bakken may be stemming. Last week, Dave Galt, executive direction the Montana Petroleum As- sociation sent out this bleak tweet: “New milestone today. Zero drill rigs working in Montana.”
With dropping oil prices, the number of rigs in North Dakota, the heart of America’s energy boom, is also drop- ping precipitously. The number of rigs working in that state recently dipped below 100 for the first time in five years and has continued to slide as – right now, anyway – drilling makes less economic sense.
So far, however, Montana counties on the eastern edge of the state near the Bakken have maintained rock-bottom jobless rates. Richland County, home of Sidney, has one of the lowest unemployment numbers in the state at 3.1 per- cent. But no longer is the rest of the state that far behind – the state average is just one point higher.
It will be interesting to watch unemployment numbers as the tourism season hits its stride this summer. While the lower price of oil has hurt economies that were largely insulated from the recent recession, the opposite may be true here, where visitor spending is so important to local businesses.
It’s cheaper to drive here and even domestic airline tickets, which are more reluctant to fall, should be a little less expensive this summer when compared to last year. To be sure, local tourism numbers can be influenced by a number of factors, including the weather, fires and when the Going-to-the Sun Road in Glacier National Park opens, but at least the latter looks promising.
The park announced that its plows are already near- ing Logan Pass and the road should open earlier than usual with road construction completed on the west side. It has the makings of a big summer, even bigger than last year when, according to a report released last week, visitors spent a record $193 million in communities surrounding the park.
And the local economy is poised to reap the benefits.
OPINION FLATHEADBEACON.COM
TWO FOR THOUGHT
Local Topics, Opposing Views
Drones’ Use and Misuse
By Tim Baldwin
Drones are machines. There is nothing inher- ently good or bad in them. However, people are rightly concerned about how government, police and military can use them for bad purposes.
Rand Paul recently said in Iowa, “[Republicans have] to run somebody who says...[we’re] the party of the Fourth Amendment...that respects your right to privacy.” Unfortunately, Paul’s message falls on deaf ears for many Republicans. Add to this, many police assume your guilt unless you consent to all their requests. It is the conservative “law and order” perspective here that is dangerous – not the tools police carry. Drones are not used in ordinary police circumstances, but constitutionally limiting police’ use of drones is still vital to liberty because people control them.
Militarily, killing people in foreign nations with- out Congress’ declaration of war or authorization of force violates the Constitution and Law of Nations. Using drones makes matters worse for diplomacy considering the secretive and distant approach to such unlawful intrusions. Controlling this, howev- er, is difficult because the people have virtually no power in these matters. Perhaps Congress can – not a promising thought.
The debate here is not about machines. It’s about human nature and what the system incentivizes. Drones are here to stay, so build a system that sheds light on government drone use and holds govern- ment accountable for drone misuse.
By Joe Carbonari
In the course of trying to kill those that are trying to kill us, we are creating a dis- tressing amount of collateral damage. The drones being used in Yemen and Pakistan are being controlled by the CIA with a fair amount of the actual flying, and triggering, done out of Nevada. There is little risk to our “pilots,” but we are not as sure as we would like to be about who we are killing. Mistakes are made, especially in war.
Arguably, we make the most mistakes when we target based on the “signature” of a target. Signature targets must sufficiently fit a profile. For instance a building may be a “known” Al Qaeda hangout with several cars arriving carrying multiple passengers. “Chatter” may have suggested that an Al Qae- da meeting was planned. This may look like it – in Nevada – or wherever, to whomever calls the shot. It is clean on our end, but is it mor- ally defensible, and is it getting the job done?
Morally, I don’t know enough to pass judg- ment, but I’m left a bit uneasy. I’m certain I wouldn’t like it if I were an average civilian, a non-combatant trying to live a normal life, with armed drones in the sky. No doubt we make some enemies. Is it worth it?
In the end, diplomacy must prevail.
GUESTCOLUMN | JohnLarson
How to Acquire Public Land
It seems that several of our legislators and politi- cal leaders are being played for fools regarding the transfer of federal lands to the states. If I were in- credibly rich and influential and wanted to own vast amounts of public land without having to share with the masses, here’s how I would go about it. First, cut Forest Service funding to reduce the effectiveness of its management. Also require that the agency absorb all firefighting costs from its management budget. Next, loudly proclaim that federal lands management is inadequate and that the state could provide much better management, despite dramat- ic differences in management directives, which are maximum profit for state lands and multiple use and sustained yield or benefit and enjoyment of the peo- ple for federal lands. Suggest that state management is much more responsive to local needs by providing more timber and better fire protection. Meanwhile, refuse to allocate existing funds for state programs to acquire land for fish, wildlife and recreation pur- poses, since that would contradict my privatization goal. Then, ignoring dozens of collaborative local ef- forts that have resulted in workable forest manage- ment solutions, advocate for a one-size-fits-all, top- down approach of transferring the federal lands to the states.
What this would accomplish is effectively trans- ferring financial support for land management from about 90.6 million taxpayers in the entire country to only about 620,000 taxpayers in Montana. The financial burden would require the state to dramati- cally increase timber harvest to generate revenue necessary to meet management costs, since rais-
ing taxes would not be an option. Despite previous claims of improved management, sustainable har- vest levels would probably soon be exceeded leading to the resource exploitation and damage common in the past. I would even have my flunkies start some catastrophic wildfires to ensure bankruptcy of the state budget and force the ultimate and inevitable sale of public lands to me and my billionaire friends. Of course, there might be a more direct route to fa- cilitate the sale of public lands with a budget amend- ment in the U.S. Congress. Does any of this sound familiar?
Here are four suggestions for our political lead- ers. First, recognize that a vast majority of Montana citizens value public lands and want to keep them public. Access to public lands is a vital part of the western heritage. Second, embrace the collabora- tive local efforts that have developed place-based so- lutions to land management issues that most people agree upon and that consider existing ecological re- alities and budgetary constraints. Third, if you re- ally dislike the concept of public land, pack up and move to Texas, where there is little federal land and people can’t hunt or fish unless they can afford pri- vate land leases or expensive bass boats. Let the rest of us enjoy continued access to our public lands for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other out- door experiences. Finally, if you are really intent on transferring ownership of federal lands, maybe you should return them to the original owners – the tribes. From what I’ve seen, I much prefer tribal stewardship to profit directed state management.
John Larson lives in Kalispell.