Civil Discourse

We believe there are a number of reasons people run for political office, the ones that come to mind are: money, self –satisfaction, self-promotion or a combination of these.  State Legislature positions are probably not desired for the money.  It seems that, regardless of campaign promises “to always listen and be worthy of the honor of representing the constituency”, it does not take long before most of that is forgotten and instead they feel they need to think for the constituency instead of representing them.  This includes reversing initiatives the voters have voted in, including but not limited to term limits.

It is therefore, disappointing when Senator Hinkle takes fair criticism from a constituent (who is known for his strong community spirit and countless hours of volunteer work) as berating, and then belittles this constituent’s opinion as “entertainment.”  Mr. Hinkle was elected to represent all the people, not just those who agree with him and it should be his obligation to show everyone respect. The recent events in Arizona generated many hours of discussion about “civil discourse”.  Has that been forgotten so soon?

Pat Ingraham votes total party line and therefore also represents only those who agree with her. We are waiting to see what her response will be to Ms. Lyman’s request.  It might also be suggested that if Ms. Ingraham feels so strongly about the sonograms, she might set up a fund to pay for those who want it, but cannot afford it.

While the majority of legislators feel there is too much government and regulations, they are trying their best to add a plethora of new ones.  To say these initiatives are being carried for someone else implies there is not ownership of the issue you are championing.  Do you support what you are trying to legislate, or do you not?

The reports are that less than a dozen of the 150 Montana legislators have turned down the offer of taxpayer supported health-care money.  Are our legislators some of the few that have refused public money for health care? Our math says that means that a large majority of either party opted to dine at the public trough, though there is much posturing about nullifying it for the public.  Also, remember that Montana is a net recipient of Federal funds – we are subsidized by taxpayers from other states and future generations.  Do we have legislators that are willing to stand up and suggest we pay our own way? Maybe raise taxes as necessary?  Anyone opposed to government projects should consider not driving on public roads or using electricity as these were developed for and paid for by our parents and grandparents through marginal tax rates of up to 90% on those who could afford it.  Contrary to killing the nation, it got stronger.

by Ole & Rusti Leivestad, Trout Creek