DEMS NEED SOME $$$$ TO HELP

My Senators must be confused.  Somehow they think that I want to pay more and be forced to buy, or have shoved down my throat, this health care package.  I was watching the coverage tonight and it wasn't an hour after the 58 Democrats and 2 Independents voted yes to move on to the debate on the Senate Health Bill that I got an e-mail from the Democrat Senatorial Committee telling me what a great job the Democrat Senators are doing and asking me for a donation to my party so we can get more of these "good Democrat" Senators next election. 

NEWS FLASH GOOD DEMOCRAT BUDDY~!  YOU HAVE SEEN YOUR LAST DONATION FROM THIS OVERTAXED FORGOTTEN DREDGE ON SOCIETY AND THERE IS NO DIFFERANCE BETWEEN YOU AND THE REPUBLICANS.  You are both just hairs on the ass of the world, the only difference is which cheek you are located on.

Come on people.  Start telling these political party people why you will no longer be giving them any money when they call and e-mail you!  Cut them off where it hurts and remind them that they represdent Montana, not Washington, DC

HEALTH CARE VOTE SATURDAY

The Senate is set to take its first crucial vote on the Senate version of the Health Care reform bill Saturday night. The bill needs 60 votes to move forward to continue debate in its current form. The Democrats control 60 votes so it’s very important that they all stand united for the bill’s advance.

Some key provisions of the bill include
• Creates “non-profit” co-ops to provide insurance to members
• Establishes government insurance companies to compete with private insurers
• Provides that individual States can choose whether to participate in “government insurance”
• Beginning in 2013 everyone would be forced to buy insurance
• Deductable paid by insured would be based on income
• Many of the costs begin upon passage but the benefits of the program don’t go into effect until the years 2013 and 1014 allowing the pool of money to “buildup”

Who pays?
• Establishes a tax on “Cadillac” health plans
• Establishes an excise tax on all annual premiums of plans that are over $8,300 for individuals
• Raises Medicare payroll tax
• Slashes Medicare coverage
• Taxes health insurance companies and Pharmaceuticals
• Places an additional tax of 5% on cosmetic sugary
• Cost exemption goes into place after those that can’t afford coverage have paid 8% of their income for coverage
This is the Obama-Max Baucus Democrat plan and they need 60 votes to move it along. If one Democrat senator falters in his vote for this bill it will fail to move ahead. Now we know our Senator Baucus will vote yes as it is his bill. Senator Tester however, can make a difference on this vote. He has the opportunity on Saturday to protect Montanans from this over-reaching and costly plan. If our readers think this is a great plan, then by all means do nothing. If, on the other hand you think some of these details need more work as I do, be sure and call Senator Tester and demand he vote NO on Saturdays vote. Call the Capital - switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for Senator Tester’s office. Be active! Do something! Or do not complain when you get the bill.

Every Havre Union employee with a “Cadillac” plan will pay more under this version of the bill. Every person with a desire for a boob job or a facelift will be taxed for that luxury. Every poor person, currently uninsured will get forced to pay 8% of their income to yet another tax. Deductibles will be based on income but will be set by agency Czars so it could be argued that anyone with a “decent” job could be subjected to paying the load for those that can’t. Most importantly, the fact that the Government is going into “business” to compete with anyone, scares the living bajeebers out of me. Tell me one “business” that the government has ever run that succeeded.

SUCKER PUNCHED

The business people in Havre have all been feeling the “pinch” of the tight economy. They are sitting on the edge of their chairs worrying about what could be a long winter with slow sales, high utility bills and other rising fixed expenses. They hear news reports on a daily basis telling them how all is improving, yet they see no local results. Many are hoping and praying that the beginning of the gift giving season of good cheer will bring an increase to their respective slumping businesses. So what do you suppose our State bureaucrats do to help? Yep, they increase the premium employers pay for Unemployment insurance an average of 71.5% starting in January.


Thank you Governor BS and our fat-cat well-paid tax-supported bureaucratic friends for this fine holiday gift. Where the Hell is our “stimulus?”

CITY - COUNTY CONSOLIDATION

It has become apparent to this blogger that some things in Havre need to change. The news is full of stories about this government entity or that fighting yet another government entity. Allot of these problems are caused by party politics. The Democrats hate the Republicans and vice-versa. If someone from one party had a good idea for the good of Havre you could be assured that someone from the opposition party would oppose it. This just never made any sense to me. We all live and pay taxes here in Havre. I am as political as the next person and will argue and put in my 2-cents worth until the cows come home. However, once the election is over I go back believing we should work together for the good of the community until the next election when we can be “partisan” again supporting out chosen candidate.


Now I have come to realize that it is not only party politics that cause the problems. It is apparent that our elected officials don’t work together either. The whole county courthouse is Democrat, yet I have heard several of the Democrat leaders from the City Council offer views of disdain about their fellow Democrat officials at the county. This surprised me because I have assumed all these years that the various officials stuck together as political party members. Apparently rivalry and jealousy between City and County government is also alive and well. Over the years we have seen many examples of this bickering between our elected officials, such as the swimming pool controversy, location and control of the law enforcement dispatch, responsibility issues with the maintenance of certain roads and streets, and etc. When one of these bureaucratic blunderers does finally reach a decision it is more often than not, reached in one of those “Top Secret” deals such as the school board regularly does. Do these people forget that the taxpayers pay taxes to support ALL of these competing government bureaucracies? I for one am sick of my tax dollars being wasted by people that can’t work together and would agree that every single one of them should be voted out, regardless of party affiliation.

What I have not heard in all these controversies is any mention of a possible consolidation of government. What would be wrong with having a city-county government? You could hire an actual professionally trained City-County manager that could be an expert instead of the elected dim bulbs we presently see in office. The dim bulbs could still be elected as City-County commissioners and still be over-paid at the current two-hundred dollars per month. We could eliminate the salary of the Mayor and three commissioners plus their insurance and benefits thus more than save enough to hire a professional manager. We could also then combine dispatch, ambulance, swimming pool, road maintenance, law enforcement, and on and on. Just combining the positions of those that are duplicate Chiefs/Department heads could conceivably save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars

What is your opinion of at least looking into a non-partisan Consolidated City-County Government?

2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER ATTACK

We have all heard our “leaders” tell us over and over again that there will be no attack on our second amendment rights. Rehberg, Tester, Baucus, and on up through President Obama have claimed that they have no plans to regulate neither guns nor gun sales in our country.

While you may believe some of these politicians are speaking the truth, I am skeptical of the honesty of some of our so called “representatives. Rueters recently reported that the United States would participate in international talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales. (Read gun control for all participating nations)

Of course this announcement came from the U.S. State Department and our own beloved Hillary Clinton. Does it stand to reason that your representatives and good old President Obama can say they really didn’t lie when they said they opposed gun control in the United States but on the other hand support gun control for all United Nation members, which includes the United States?

2nd amendment rights folks best keep a watch on this one as it appears to be a back door attempt to regulate gun sales. What do you suppose would be next under the guise of international treaties?

Read the report on Rueters at  http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

E-1 TOWING SALVAGE YARD

E-1 towing is has been located next to Havre Ready Mix on High-Way 2 NE for a number of years operating out of the building you see in the picture. The Erickson’s also have been operating a salvage yard that at one time was located on the old city dump site north of Havre which is owned by Bill Baltrush. The Erickson’s have applied for a new license to locate a salvage yard just east of town on property they own which is off the high-way that has low lying areas to obstruct the junk from the view of the road. Hill County, and particularly Sanitation expert and impender of all progress Clay Vincent, have been constantly harassing them with unending requirements and road blocks to hold up the issuance of the salvage yard license. The long range plan according to the Erickson boys is to build a building on their property and vacate their present location entirely but they must first get the salvage yard back in operation.

The new site in this picture already has junk vehicles being dismantled and stored on the property. The picture of the new site was taken sitting on the approach to the old drive-in theater facing north. It is close to 31st Avenue NE. I drove down this lane as far as I could go until I came to a chained gate with nothing of the operation being visible. I circled the whole property going down to the old Krezlak meat plant, and behind to the railroad right of way, and wasn’t able to see any wrecked vehicles, even though they are there. There is one property that has a residence and the rest is commercial or agriculture uses. For the life of me, I cannot see what Clay’s problem is with this location, other than his disdain for the Erickson’s. The County Commissioners are taking public comment on this proposed site until Wednesday, November 18th at 5 pm and will make their determination according to the written comments they receive.

Now we all know that unless you have a problem with something you don’t tend to send in written comment so it is assured that there will be more negative comment then positive, thus assuring that the Erickson boys are doomed in this venture.

UNLESS! ……………….. Maybe some of our good followers would find this abuse of government power offensive like I do, and actually send in some comments in support of these people being able to expand their business. Is not this the same abuse we are all subject too? Like the school board, etc, etc? It’s time we take a stand against some of these power happy nit-wits that fight free enterprise at every turn.

Drop your written comments off at the Hill County Commissioner’s office or mail them to 315 4th St, Havre, Montana. Make sure they are in the Commissioner’s office by 5 pm on November 18th.

It’s time to take a stand and say “WE ARE MAD AS HELL, AND WE AREN’T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!”

HEADSTART

Ever wonder what it cost to run the Head Start Program? According to information in this flyer they receive a $1,578,927 grant along with $394,732 in volunteer and donation dollars for a total of $1,973,659. Yes, you read it right! Right at two million dollars a year. This program serves 211 children in Hill, Blaine, and Liberty Counties for a mere cost of $9,354 each per year. Is this a good deal for us, the tax-payers? While the jury is out on that question the childcare folk at the State bureaucracys claim that this gives these 211 local children the ability to “go to school ready” thus saving the tax-payer money in the long run.

If you go to the State website at www.childcare.mt.gov you will see page after page of documentation trying to convince you of the “merits” of their programs, but what infuriates me is the same old song and dance trying to get me to believe that these Government run programs are part of Montana’s “ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT”. Just what increase to the economy does a government program give us? Of course it is logical to claim that a program for people to become educated to rise up out of poverty has merit but it is not really something you can call economic development. Expenditure of tax dollars in a local community would seem to help the economy of that community but at what cost? Currently Head Start employs over 50 people to run this program benefiting 211 children. Is that a good return on investment for the tax-payers? And is employing 50 people with tax dollars that were taken from the local community for Federal and State taxes really creating “economic development” or decreasing development? Or is it just re-circulating existing dollars in a back-handed redistribution of wealth scheme? The website further goes on to state that Head Start eases the frequency of employee absences as 21% of all missed work is caused by “family issues”, hence they are helping the economy by keeping people at work. I further wonder how all these “fact finding” missions, studies, and websites funded with tax dollars justifying their very existence cost the over-burdened taxpayer.
Be sure and take a look at yet another burocratic website www.childcare.mt.gov and give us your opinion.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MY FOOT!

JUDGE ELECT DAVE KREZELAK RESIGNS

Havre City Judge elect David Krezelak made an astonishing move this morning when he announced he was declining the position of City Judge. Voters cast 1,686 votes for Krezelak less than 10 days ago giving him the victory in the non partisan race over his opponent Margaret Hencz who received 1,085 votes. Krezelak cited “personal reasons” for his decision.  Current City Judge, Joyce Perszyk didn't seek re-election and her term expires at the end of the year.

It is our understanding that the City Council is placing the appointment of a replacement on the council agenda to formulate a plan. We will keep you posted as we learn more.

THE REST OF THE STORY REGARDING THE INACTIONS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD

PLEASE DON'T EMBARRASS THE SCHOOL BOARD

The Havre Daily Corrector has obtained a copy of information given to our local school board by a local tax-paying voter regarding the awarding of the Highland Park school addition to an out of town contractor.  As you might have read in the so called local newspaper, the contoversy has arisen because some locals  dared question the actions of our local tax-spending school administration.  This information is posted below following the letter that was sent to the Havre School Board by a group calling themselves "Concerned Taxpayers and Havre Public School Supporters".  As you might have gleaned from the "politically correct" reporting of the local news paper, the requests addressed in this letter were for the most part, ignored.

The Havre Daily Corrector is attempting to obtain a copy of the controversial Chamber letter sent to the school board in support of local business in lieu of out of town spending of our local tax funds.  Watch for further updates

*********************************************************************************


Concerned Taxpayers & Havre Public School Supporters
628 4th Avenue
Havre, MT 59501



October 16, 2009

Shad Huston
3633 6th Street W
Havre, MT 59501


Dear Mr. Huston;

We are requesting an Action Item to be placed on the agenda for the November 10th Havre Public School Board meeting to address the public concern over the decision and the selection process of the contractor for the Highland Park Elementary Building addition.
If an Action Item for the next meeting cannot be provided we are requesting a Special Public Meeting by the Havre Public School Board to be held to address the selection process of the contractor for the Highland Park Elementary Building addition.

Thank you in advance for your consideration for our request.

Sincerely,

Concerned Taxpayers & Havre Public School Supporters

Cc: David Mahon, Superintendent

Havre Public School Board Members: Aileen Couch, Darlene Bricker, Harvey Capellen, Lee Christianson, Cindy Erickson, Norm Proctor, Curtis Smeby

John Kelleher – Managing Editor - Havre Daily News



ACTUAL COPY OF INFORMATION PRESENTED TO HAVRE SCHOOL BOARD AS FOLLOWS;


• My name is Debi Rhines, My husband (Dave) & I are tax paying property owners in Hill County. Currently, my husband owns and operates Schine Inc., an Electrical Contracting business – Schine Electric and a Computer division - Bear Paw Technologies.

o Dave began his business in 2003; he currently employs 14 people. I currently work for Schine, Inc. overseeing the office operations.

o Schine Electric has employed upwards of 24 employees during peak construction periods.

o Schine Electric opened a shop in Glasgow, Montana in 2009, due to increased activity in the area by contractors such as Sletten & Clausen.

o Schine Electric is the largest Electrical Contractor in the Havre Area. In 2008, Schine Electric paid $654,713.00 out in Payroll to its Havre employees.

o To illuminate Information requested by the Havre Daily News and is probably of interest to the school board members.

 Schine Electric is a subcontractor for Clausen & Sons.

• Per our sales figures, in 2006 & 2007 less than 20% of our business came from our working relationship with Clausen & Sons.

• For the years 2008 & 2009 – 41% & 43% (respectfully) of sales came from contracts with Clausen & Sons. The increase in sales percentage is mainly due to large jobs such as the Border Patrol Stations built in Havre & Malta.

o Most certainly the relationship with Dave Clausen and his crew has grown over the past several years. Both firms are successful in many areas of the construction business – for example - professional installations, ability to complete contracts in a timely fashion and solid customer service.

o Regardless of our relationship with Clausen & Sons Contracting - I am here as a taxpayer in this city. Tax Dollars are used for the school district; the Havre Public Schools are funded by the collective community tax dollar. Your recent decision enabled you to use our money to supplement the livelihood of another company, their employees and the community in which they live in over 100 miles away from Havre

• In 2008, my husband and I and our commercial real estate partners paid to the Hill County Treasurer $16,738.00 in property taxes. Per the county, 47.354% of the paid taxes goes to the Havre Public Schools = that is $7,926.00 of OUR dollars sent your way for your use just last year. Now, I consider my husband, and our business partners “average” business community members in regards to property ownership. So for illustration purposes only: estimated tax dollar support could be argued to be valued around $300,000.00 or more from local business/property owners!

Estimated Business Property Owners 40
Avg tax contribution to HPS 7,900.00
Annual estimate contribution 316,000.00

This is only an estimate of business property owners in a city population of 9,630 people.

To look at the community as a whole I gathered information from Bear Paw Development.

2000 Housing Units = 4,400
2000 Average Home Value = $81,140.00
Taxable amount for an $81,140.00 home = $81,140.00 x .03010 = $2,442.00

Of the $2,442.00 paid by the homeowner an estimate of 47.354% goes to the School District = $1,156.00.
2000 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value $50,000 - $99,999 = 54.7%.
54.7% of the total number of housing units = 2,406.
2406 Households contribute an average $1,156.00 to the district
which annually is = $2,781,336.00.

I am not claiming to be an expert in school funding, but these simple illustrations show that WE THE TAX PAYING PEOPLE OF HAVRE HAVE A LARGER STAKE IN YOUR OPERATIONS and HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE SPENDING OF 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS.

There are no guarantees that the contractor of your choice will use local contractors. The majority of us in the contracting business live in homes within the range I have used in my illustration. These figures are from the 2000 Census. Please note our home prices have increased, thus has your revenue. I am guessing the employees of the local contractors that have been overlooked are a large percentage of the homes used in my example.

Another illustration:

o 2009 Employment numbers tell us that 4.5% of the measured and recorded populations of 4,588 people are in the construction business in Havre.

o 4.5% of the population measured is = to 206 people – if each person lives in the home previously illustrated, the collective group will have contributed a total of $238,136.00 to the district in just one year.

o Hardly a small figure to look over in regards to the construction business supporting the Havre Public School District.

• The larger corporations hire contractors based on the lowest bid – for example Wal-Mart, McDonalds & Pizza Hut – they are seeking to keep their bottom line lean – within our community these corporations hire out of town contractors – we see it frequently in our business. I can make choices on which businesses I wish to solicit – especially if I don’t feel those businesses are being a good community partner. However, I don’t have a choice to not pay my taxes based on school choosing to be a less than favorable community partner.

• In our request for a meeting with the Havre Public Schools we wanted an opportunity to discuss your decision making process. Discussion of thoughts and ideas can create a stronger relationship between the decision makers and the funding entity – US - the taxpayer.

1. How much have you actually saved between your choice and the local contractor?
2. Did you save enough money to be a good steward of our tax dollars?
3. In the process of selecting a Contractor Manager at Risk you provided a “Qualification Statement” to the contractors invited to present a Request for Qualification, your document indicates the evaluation process would be calculated by weighted criteria. What is the score? Where is the DATA?

Discussion of the process is healthy, by shutting us out – with comments like “you had your opportunity to attend the meeting” – you have created in my mind an antagonistic and a less than transparent operation with MY tax dollars. IN my view, you have taken our money out of town for your own best interests while you had a qualified and willing local contractor right here in our hometown.

• In another note – I feel you have shown a lack of integrity by making a comment to the Havre Daily in regards to your alleged communication with me, then not providing me with a copy of this communication at all. In addition, the Superintendent’s Assistant told me that my information was the information provided in the Havre Daily! Have you now appointed the Havre Daily as your new Communications Director? Under previous administrations the motto was a Tradition of Excellence. This current Havre Public School Board Chair and Superintendent have work to do to meet that description.

• Thank you for your time, I want the best for this community and questioning and understanding the decisions made by this board will offer me peace of mind that you are truly good stewards of our community tax dollars.

HOW MUCH DOES YOUR CONGRESSMAN MAKE?

Why don't we ever hear any uproar about the wage and benifit packages of our congressional delegation.  The following is a copy of a very interesting article by Robert Longley,  The article appeared on About.com at the following link    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm


US Government InfoSalaries and Benefits of US Congress Members
By Robert Longley, About.com

U.S. Congress salaries and benefits have been the source of taxpayer unhappiness and myths over the years. Here are some facts for your consideration.

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.

In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management1, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.

During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.

From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2009)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House2 - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

Benefits Paid to Members of Congress
You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that's a myth.

Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, the were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.

Members of Congress receive retirement3 and health benefits4 under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation. Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System5 (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System6 (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
©2009 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.