In-fighting kills infrastructure bill
The final days of the 64th session of the Montana Legislature were symptomatic of the political dysfunction that is Montana politics these days.
Center stage was the fight over an infrastructure bill that had not only been talked about for the past four months in Helena, but was in fact a carryover from the 2013 Legislature, when the governor vetoed an infrastructure bill to help Eastern Montana cope with the oil boom.
Were it not for the disastrous water compact bill, you could make the case that the infrastructure measure was the most important bill to go before lawmakers this year. Unfortunately, the Legislature passed the water compact bill with its nearly unlimited potential to cause mayhem for Montana property rights, and left the infrastructure bill dangling until it died a slow death.
Mind you, we didn’t support the infrastructure bill the way it was structured. It was essentially a sweetheart deal for a variety of good causes that would have been getting a windfall while even better causes were on the outside looking in. But some kind of infrastructure bill was a must.
The argument between the Republicans and Democrats had two essential components. Republicans were opposed to using bonding authority to pay for part of the cost of the bill because they claimed enough cash was on hand already to pay for the most important projects without borrowing on behalf of taxpayers. Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock said he would veto any spending plan that used part of the state’s $300 million surplus.
That’s pretty close to the same argument that resulted in Bullock’s veto in 2013. Meanwhile, communities in the Bakken oil region of Eastern Montana continue to fray under pressure of a huge influx of heavy equipment, businesses and new residents.
Another fight hinged on whether Eastern Montana was getting too much money, or whether the governor’s pet projects were getting too much money. Under the bill as originally proposed, the state could spend money on university-system and other state buildings, including $25 million for the Montana Historical Society’s proposed new Heritage Center.
It would seem that a compromise could have been reached where no one’s principles would have had to be sacrificed. The governor is right to not want to put at risk the state’s solvency, but a bill could have been structured in such a way that were the surplus to drop below a specified minimum, the governor could call a special session to nail down alternative funding.
In addition, while a state historical museum is a great cause, it doesn’t rise anywhere near the priority level of protecting our Eastern Montana communities. That work, plus essential work in Western Montana, should have survived negotiations while projects like the Heritage Center went back on the “wish list.”
No one party gets the blame for failing to get to “yes” on this important bill; they both do.