A conservative view of infrastructure bill

 I agree that infrastructure in Montana is in bad shape and we need to work on it.

The typical infrastructure bills that fund TSEP, RRGL, etc., are done with dedicated sources of funding. We sent those forward with support for those projects, just shy of $100 million worth. 

SB 416 was an additional infrastructure bill, that was connected to $100 million in bonding (the government term for a borrowing money). Bonding is a serious issue, so serious, in fact, that the Montana Constitution requires a two-thirds vote from each body of the Legislature to make it happen. I am not for bonding, especially when we have the money in the bank to do the work.  

This bill was also filled with pork projects for the urban areas, Renovation of Romney Hall (MSU, Bozeman), a new Montana historical museum (Helena), and an addition on the Montana State Hospital (which would require an additional 80 full-time employees: read growth in government). 

Our governor has declared that there will be a $300 million ending fund balance and that we should borrow money to pay for these projects. This is why I proposed an amendment that would have funded additional TSEP, RRGL, Quality School Projects, and Reclamation projects with cash, and then if the last trigger was met, we would bond a little ($20 million) to do some of the capital projects, like the new veterans home in Butte, rewire Lewis and Clark Caverns, Billings Tech Center, etc.

However, the governor was unwilling to even discuss any changes to the bill. Like so many, very important bills this session, it was a take it his way or leave it. And his way was to make this an ideological debate by attaching bonding (in a very large way, $100 million) to the bill. I also had another amendment that would have been all cash and would have required only a majority vote, but the other side was unwilling to negotiate at all.

Infrastructure bills are not new. HB 218 was passed last session with a large majority in both houses, only to be vetoed. Then a few months later, the governor said we need infrastructure in Eastern Montana.  Ironic. Again, we proposed Eastern Montana infrastructure bills this session and again heard promises they would not make it through the process and they didn’t.

In the end, I voted against the bill (SB416). Not because I am against infrastructure, quite the opposite, but because I am unwilling to put our kids and grandkids on the hook for spending that we have the money to pay for right now. The federal government has gone down that road to a place I’m not sure if we will ever return from. I refuse to put Montana on a course that would follow.

I hope you understand my position. —Carl Glimm, Kalispell Republican, HD6