EDITORIAL: Infrastructure brawl continues

It was just over one year ago when the Inter Lake published an editorial condemning the political dysfunction that had resulted in funding for infrastructure being left undone for the second legislative session in a row.

The question before us now is whether the 2017 Legislature will finish out the hat trick and leave this important issue unresolved for a third time.

Frankly, we are not particularly optimistic, especially after watching the two leading gubernatorial candidates go after each other last week like a couple of temperamental hockey players wielding big sticks.

Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock has proposed a $200 million plan to use a combination of cash and bonds to fund infrastructure projects across the state. That’s $50 million more than the funding bill that failed in 2015, and no doubt the spending is justified in terms of need, but what’s the chance the Legislature will go along with it, should Republicans have the majority in both houses again?

Aye, there’s the rub, for Republicans have made it plain they are not inclined to support bonding as a means of paying for investment in infrastructure.

But Bullock can’t just blame Republicans for the stalemate either, since he vetoed an infrastructure bill in the 2013 session, possibly leading to the bad blood that has left the state incapable of moving forward on the issue.

Of course, much of that original bill, as well as the 2015 version, was intended to address infrastructure needs in Eastern Montana, which was struggling under the demands of a rapidly growing oil and coal economy. Now that the energy boom has slowed substantially, it’s probably going be debated how much of that money is still needed.

Bullock said at a press conference in Butte that “a small handful of legislators put Montana politics ahead of Montana jobs, played fast and loose with our economy, and voted down an infrastructure bill that would have resulted in thousands of jobs and investment across Montana.”

His campaign then affixed part of the blame to Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Gianforte because he had donated the relatively small sum of $5,400 to a handful of legislators who had voted against the infrastructure bill.

Gianforte, for his part, dismissed the governor’s plan as political gamesmanship because it reprises much of the previous failed plan.

We’ve seen plenty of that on both sides. Hopefully, in the 2017 Legislature, the leadership of whichever party is in the majority will make an honest assessment about what projects need to get done immediately for the safety of the public and the environment and will fund those first. If there’s money left over at the end of the session, that’s the time to consider a wish list of projects that may be less vital and almost certainly will be more controversial.

In other words, do what you were sent to Helena to accomplish first — and then fight afterwards.