Gov's jeans the least of our worries

There's been some grumbling in Montana, among those who are most likely to be critical of a Democratic governor, about our governor's fashion sensibilities.

Specifically, there's been grumbling about Schweitzer's seemingly constant attachment to blue jeans, along with a tie and sports coat. Some folks think Schweitzer should be representing the governor's office and the state in a suit.

There's a picture of Schweitzer attending a recent conference of the Democratic Governors Association, where Schweitzer does indeed stand apart from a dozen or so more formally dressed governors.

But maybe that's a good thing. Our reserved judgment on Schweitzer is not likely to be swayed by blue jeans. Once he has a track record to be judged by, maybe he will stand apart from other governors. Or maybe he'll just look different.

We like Schweitzer's plan for promoting more motion picture and television production in Montana, but some things need to be pointed out.

Mainly, the "The Big Sky on the Big Screen Act" is basically a big business subsidy, the same kind of "corporate welfare" that is often vilified by Democrats.

Schweitzer's plan offers tax credits to those who film or develop print advertising in Montana, to those who spend money on filming in the state, and to those who employ Montana residents in film productions. The same types of carrots that are dangled by economic development organizations to attract businesses that may or may not last. The state may lose a small amount in taxes, but the return on that investment could be millions of dollars spent in Montana by out-of-state companies.

We support the show-biz breaks because they're aimed at jump-starting an economic sector that has been lagging in recent years. The tax breaks will not be reducing money in the tax coffers, but increasing it by actually encouraging Hollywood to come back to our state after a too-long absence. And any community that's hosted a production knows that it's like having a gravy train roll into town, with a satisfying aftertaste of economic ripple effect.

Besides that, films about Montana simply should not be filmed in Canada or somewhere else just because it's cheaper.

Exactly why the Legislature entertains some bills is beyond us. Textbook example: a bill that would prohibit the use of unmarked police cars for monitoring traffic offenses.

The main stated intent of House Bill 368 is that it would reduce the potential for criminals to pose as police officers, using fake lights and sirens to stop unsuspecting motorists.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Scott Mendenhall, R-Clancy, said in a hearing that it's intended to prevent cases like that of a banker who was murdered in New York after being stopped by a fake policeman.

That surely is a tragedy. But for some reason, we have a hunch that isn't the driving motivation for some lawmakers who support this legislation. We suspect some just don't like the idea of being tricked by unmarked Highway Patrol cars.

That's because the bill's supposed purpose is completely undermined by the fact that it appropriately does nothing to prevent the use of unmarked police cars for undercover investigations. There would, therefore, still be plenty of cops out there in unmarked cars, and thus plenty of potential for poseurs.

Never mind that painting and marking currently unmarked Montana Highway Patrol cars is projected to cost $31,891.

But what do we know? House Bill 368 has been twice approved in the House and will soon come up for a third and final vote.