Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Opinion & Editorial

by Rachel Carroll and Terry Kendrick, Helena

What will the average Montana homeowner do with their $400 property tax rebate? Buy a refrigerator or food so they can feed their kids, pay a medical bill that has been sitting on the kitchen counter, or perhaps put it toward their mortgage. This may seem like a good sum of money and fill a much needed purpose, but does the $400 tax rebate represent a fair tax system in Montana? No, but it could have.

As Montana's 2007 legislative session ends, tax reform in the state accounts for: a one-time only rebate to the average property owner, nothing for the overwhelming number of renters, little for the in-state small business owner, and millions for out-of-state tax evaders like Plum Creek Timber. Although the school funding bill included an increase in the state's share of the minimum budget that each school must create this could only potentially decrease the district share of the local school budget, but without guaranteed tax reduction of the local taxpayer.

Sen. Jim Elliott, D-Trout Creek, and other legislators pushed throughout the session to give the state Revenue Department the power to ensure taxes are collected by going after out-of-state tax cheats. Republicans and the big corporations generally opposed closing tax loop holes.

The state budget bill, HB 2, was finally approved by the Senate during the special session. But, House Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, said the HB 2 was "not sustainable." Sales also failed to support legislation that would have helped collect taxes owed to the state and citizens of Montana by out-of-state corporations. Real tax reform could have been paid for by collecting money already owed to the state... if loopholes were closed.

Big corporations use Montana as a tax haven. They benefit from low-interest penalties and lax enforcement of laws which require them to pay taxes. In addition they take advantage of "legal" tax schemes to increase their profit at the expense of Montana taxpayers. For example, in 2002, 40 percent of the largest 500 companies doing business in Montana paid less than $500 in Montana corporate income taxes; sixty-five of them for four years running.

Let's look at just one of these schemes: real estate investment trusts (REITs). If a person buys property, then sells it at a higher price, the difference is taxed as a "capital gain." Most people pay capital gains tax when they sell property that has increased in value. But Plum Creek Timber is exempt from paying capital gains because is organized as a REIT. REITs don't pay capital gains tax. Big corporations like Plum Creek Timber owe Montana for the services of the state just like the rest of us. Plum Creek owns 1.3 million acres in Montana and is in the process of selling much of it. Closing the loopholes for REITs would mean $70 million every two years for the state. Thanks to the corporate lobby and the failure of legislators to close these corporate tax loopholes, the middle class in Montana is left holding a disproportionate tax burden.

On April 20, Matt Gouras of the Associated Press claimed that Plum Creek Timber would be footing the bill for the $400 per-homeowner rebate. In reality Plum Creek Timber was only being asked to contribute to Montana just as any taxpayer does.

Recently a Ronan man convicted of evading taxes from 2000 to 2003 made state headlines. He will be sent to prison for tax evasion. But, what about the nearly $20 million owed to the citizens of Montana by Plum Creek Timber? This is nearly seven hundred times that owed by our man in Ronan. The difference is that Plum Creek has political power and influence and is able to take advantage of a legal loophole for their benefit.

So while everyday Montanans pay the taxes that fund education for our kids, paving our roads and keeping our towns safe, Plum Creek lawyers and accountants are busy hide piles of cash in an elaborate shell game supported by their friends in the legislature. President and CEO of Plum Creek Timber, Rick Holley, has stated, "Our standards, integrity, and reputation will not be compromised." Well, Mr. Holley, they have been compromised and it's about time that the Legislature of the State of Montana holds you responsible.

Elliott's legislation and other tax compliance measures were continually tabled by the gavel-happy House Taxation Committee Chaired by Bob Lake, R-Hamilton. This type of tax legislation would help define Montana as a state where tax fairness is valued, business is respected, and tax cheats are not tolerated.

- Rachel Carroll is a Researcher and Terry Kendrick is the Director of The Policy Institute in Helena Montana. The Policy Institute is a progressive think-tank that works on a wide array of issues including tax and budget policy.

In defense of my position

Dear Editor,

On March 29, 2007 the Ravalli Republic allowed their friend to write a "guest" editorial. They don't allow anyone else that privilege. This letter made some false claims about me and illustrated what Russ Lawrence feels he should defend when it comes to pornography. The Republic claims to publish letters "as they are received" but an impartial investigation would reveal that to be a lie. I wrote a letter in response to Lawrence's "editorial" on the 31st of March and they finally published part of my letter on the 15th of May and censored out the part that illustrated what Lawrence was defending. I am hoping the Star will publish the letter as I wrote it.

I am writing in response to Russ Lawrence's "guest editorial" in the Ravalli Republic March 29, 2007 issue. It is apparent that their neighbor has a lot of influence on the paper even though his position is in line with the ACLU that even child pornography, or pornography involving children, should be allowed to be sold, once it is made and as the "editorial" insinuated. His quotes of Supreme Court Justice Brennan and Justice Thurgood Marshall are often used to defend child pornography and even the most violent and degrading obscenity. Thankfully, their opinions were the minority opinions on the court and the court's decisions on obscenity, since the founding of our nation, has been that obscenity is NOT protected speech just like libel, slander, perjury, and 20 or so other forms of speech.

Marshall's statement: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch" when taken literally would mean that law enforcement could no longer enter a pedophile's home and seize evidence concerning child pornography.

When it comes to obscenity the courts have said that obscenity laws can only make the "dissemination" illegal. In other words, it is kind of like rotten meat, if you want to make it in your own home and eat it rotten that is fine but don't be distributing it in the community. The laws we have passed and the laws we propose here are not intended to regulate what a person makes or sees in his "own home."

Lawrence said I issued a "challenge" in my January letter. I did not issue a challenge. I wrote: "When they heard these same liberal bleeding heart complaints the Attorney General's commission asked the misguided media, library and school representatives to bring them one example of an obscenity law being used against a library, school, legitimate bookstore, museum or other cultural arts establishment and they could not come back with one incident since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Miller decision."

There have been many successful and some unsuccessful obscenity prosecutions since the Attorney General's Report on Pornography. (Two were successfully prosecuted under Federal Law in Montana recently). Because not ALL prosecutions are successful does not mean we should throw out the law or that it is not a good law. If we felt that way we could throw out MOST laws including the laws against murder and child molestation.

What Lawrence failed to tell the readers is what these establishments were displaying or distributing when they were charged with obscenity. I think your readers need to know what he is defending. (Ravalli County has no way to defend against such filth at this time.)

I am going to briefly describe, in as gentle terms as possible, what was charged as obscene in the examples he mentioned.

2 Live Crew's exhibitions described all sorts of perverted sexual activity including oral and anal sex and the guitar one performer stroked shot out "ejaculate." The presentations were made to mixed audiences including youth.

Mapplethorpe had an exhibit open to the general public (remember the "piss Christ" - a crucifix in a jar of urine?) that featured a photo of a man with his arm up to the elbow in another man's rectum and another photo of an innocent little 2 or 3 year old girl whom he took a photo of. She was sitting in a dress and her genitals were visible and she was obviously surprised by the photo.

The Barnes and Noble book was by Jock Sturgis and consisted of several photos of naked children in different poses. (They were threatened with prosecution, not under obscenity laws, but under child porn laws).

In the Libby incident that Lawrence misconstrues, the county charged the person selling the obscene magazines with a law that they wrote and we opposed. During the prosecution the County Attorney approached the Commissioners and asked them to redo the law and make it similar wording to the law we had recommended in the first place. It says something that after the new law was passed the owner removed ALL pornography from his two stores and has not dealt in them since. We advised the County Attorney NOT to seize material with a search warrant but that the magazines should be purchased by the Sheriff's Department to avoid the problem they ran into.

Lawrence apparently supports the ACLU position mentioned above and he is almost always present to oppose our laws in the legislature.

As I see various individuals and businesses defend the sleaze mentioned above and try to destroy any means of protecting our communities and families from those who would destroy for the sake of the almighty dollar, I end with a quote from Patrick Henry that sums up the reason for my dedication in fighting to pass laws and to warn people of the harm of the material produced and distributed by those who have no scruples and no moral position except money. You can not know what is being supported on the other side without knowing what exists:

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings." -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Are we blind to the damage such material is doing to our families or are we just apathetic? Or do we own a shop and have some hope in monetary gain from our positions? You need to decide and use that knowledge in deciding where to spend their money.

Dallas. D. Erickson
Stevensville

Support sustainable agriculture

Dear Editor,

The Star ran a good article on Farm subsidies (5/23/07). The combination of commodity subsidies and free trade deals have benefited only the big multinational corporations, not the farmers, not the consumers. Now a trade "deal" is being worked out between the Pelosi-led Democrats and the Bush Administration. The closed-door, backroom nature of the deal shows once again, like at the WTO and negotiations for other free trade agreements, how deeply flawed outcomes result from closed and non-transparent processes. This deal completely ignores one of the most damaging and controversial aspects of trade deals: agriculture.

It does not address the false promise consistent in free trade agreements that all farmers will find prosperity by increasing their export market shares. Of course farmers don't export, multinational corporations do. Instead of leading toward prosperity for farmers, free trade has driven an export-led corporate model of agriculture that has substantially increased the dumping of subsidized agricultural commodities onto world markets at below the cost of production. Small-scale farmers, who make up as high as 70 percent of the population in some of the poorest countries in the world, cannot compete with these below-cost imports. In many cases, these farmers can no longer support themselves on their land, and are forced to migrate to other areas such as the United States in search of a better life.

Big agribusiness has flourished under the free trade and commodity subsidy system while farmers in both the U.S. and developing countries have been losing out. What we have increasingly witnessed is the consolidation of our food and agriculture system at the expense of small farmers, healthy food and rural communities. The U.S. has lost 60% of its farmers in the last 50 years.

The Farm Bill is being re-written this summer. Family farmer groups are urging Congress to place strict limits on commodity subsidies and apply the savings to programs that promote sustainable (and organic) agriculture, local food systems and rural communities. Visit www.sustainableagriculturecoalition.org to learn more. Get involved, this farm bill determines the health of our people, our land and our nation. Tell your legislators, NOW, that you want the farm bill to be a "good food" bill and promote fresh, healthy food for all.

Jill Davies
Stevensville

©2006 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney