Miscellaneous

Would a BBA really work?  I think it depends.  I doubt it would do much to restrain Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.  I don’t think the whole Constitution thing means a whole lot to them.

I think Hillary’s different, partly because of Bill.  He was the last President to balance a budget, and she would want to match his record, if not exceed it.   Right now the Republican frontrunner is Jeb Bush.  If a BBA is in place, or imminent, Hillary would embrace it, and promise to implement it.  She would point out that the last President to balance the budget was a Democrat, who happens to be her husband.  He was followed in office by Jeb’s brother, a Republican, who promptly blew through the trillions in reserve that were bequeathed to him by his predecessor.

So if it’s Clinton v. Bush, advantage Clinton on balancing the budget.  At least in historical, Presidential terms.  She could use the BBA to beat up Bush about his brother’s record.  What’s he going to do, admit the truth, that his brother’s a dope?

We haven’t had a lot of help from Democrats, though that may be about to change in Montana.  Once we pass this thing the Democrats will change their tune.  They would have no choice.  An Article V Amendment is the voice of the people.  In embracing it, the Democrats would neutralize one of their weaknesses  — the big spender tag.  One of the defining issues of 2016 would be how, exactly, we’re going to balance the budget in the timeline set out in the Amendment.  Hillary could talk about making the wealthy pay their fair share, and Bush would promise no new taxes.  This would have to have a positive effect on confidence in our economic future.  Another virtuous circle, as economic confidence grows, the economy grows, making it easier to actually balance the damn thing.

This is all bullshit.  I know.  Sitting around predicting how something will play out politically eighteen months from now is a fool’s game.  But it’s as plausible as any other scenario.  And it shouldn’t scare Democrats.

At least the good ones.

When informed that Sen. Monroe was wavering, and could cost us South Dakota, Lew called Alan Unruh of Sioux Falls, a chiropractor, like Monroe, who knows him very well.  Unruh’s wife is head of Right-to-life in South Dakota, and Monroe is strongly pro-life.  Unruh called Monroe, had a good conversation, and got a firm commitment to a yes vote on Tuesday.  If we lose in the South Dakota Senate, it won’t be because of Monroe.

Thank you, Lew.

That’s what Democratic Senator Bill Ray of Juneau used to ask when someone asked him for a political favor.  Do Montana Democrats have a dog in the fight between normal Republicans and the Birch whack jobs over HJ 4?  What’s in it for them?

For the Birch Society this is a very big deal.  If you go to their web site and look around you’ll see that the fight against Article V is their reason for being.  It’s the only specific thing they’ve had going for them for the last 25 years, that and their Support Your Local Sheriff program.  I’m not making this up.  In our work around the country we’ve found that Montana is their strongest state, along with Oklahoma.  If they lose in Montana, they can’t win anywhere, and the path to 34 is clear.  A successful Amendment Convention, on any subject, would drive a stake in the heart of the John Birch Society.

This would be good for the Republican Party, and the country, but would it be good for Democrats, in Montana and nationally?  I’ve argued yes, but a straight political calculation is complicated.  What’s not complicated is that both political parties in this country have an interest in an opposition party that is not influenced by nutcases.  There are many cases where bipartisan cooperation is needed to solve problems.  We haven’t seen much of that in Congress recently, but if you want a big fix to a big problem you can’t dance alone, you need a partner from across the aisle.

So it turns out that what’s good for the country is also good for the Democratic Party.  In Montana and elsewhere, the message to Democrats is clear.

Don’t let the Birchers win.

That’s what it will come down to in Helena on Tuesday.  We’ll lose at least eight votes to the Birchers, and for every one over eight we’ll need a Democrat.  Politics is arithmetic; it’s not rocket science.  If we lose 15 Republicans we’ll need seven Democrats.  We should get Zac Perry of Hungry Horse.  For him it’s not only a good vote; it’s a smart vote.  There must be other Zac Perrys, who would be helping themselves politically with this vote.  I don’t know if we can count on Ellie Hill and Andrew Person.  They’re from Missoula, where a no vote might not hurt them, and their yeas in Judiciary don’t guarantee one on the floor.

Actually, I am counting on Ellie Hill.  I don’t think her vote in Judiciary was cast lightly. She knew exactly what she was doing.  Among other things, she was sticking it to the John Birch Society, a plague on the politics of Montana.  I bet that vote felt good.  I remember making a few like that.

If you’re a Montana Democrat like Ellie Hill, what do you think of the John Birch Society, in purely political terms?  They’re such crackpots they give the Republican Party a bad name, which may help Democrats.  But purging their influence from the Republican Party moves it toward the center, making it easier for Democrats to find common ground.

This is stretching it a bit, but the Birchers are to the Republicans what the Communists were to the Democrats.  Not just an embarrassment, but a very bad influence.

I never ran into a communist in my political career.  If I had, I wouldn’t have laid off him because he was bad for the Democrats.  Democrats are Americans.

Communists are not.

I don’t know if Sen. Jeff Monroe of Pierre has ever read it.  Right now he might find it useful.  He voted for our bill earlier in the week, and is being overwhelmed by the reaction of the West River Whacko Birds.  According to Hal Wick, it’s a name they wear proudly.  They’re the Eagle Forum, John Birch hard right  from the west side of the Missouri.

Senator Monroe knows what’s right.  His vote wasn’t an accident.  And his vote will be the deciding one this Tuesday.  After over 30 years Hal got his bill through the House.  Now he’s one vote, Jeff Monroe’s vote, away from Senate passage, and South Dakota as the 25th state.

Will he do what’s right, again?