How the New Right Governs the Last Best Place

State funding per student is nearly 40% less than the average of our seven peer states. In 1990, student tuition and fees covered 25% of instructional costs and the State provided about 75%. Today, State support has fallen to nearly 40% while enrollment and fixed costs have risen. The result has been program and faculty cuts, bigger class sizes, fewer course offerings, and higher tuition and fees. Tuition for Montana resident students has nearly tripled since 1992. --Lynn Hamilton, Montana Board of Regents/1/

We should not neglect to show that public higher education has a major, vital responsibility to conduct research in support of the economy and to provide an educated workforce, but we should make clear that these are not our primary functions. Much of the weakness in our performance of our public role in recent years has arisen from our having forgotten this and allowed short-term fiscal considerations to shape our self-presentation and our priorities, and we have done this to our long-term detriment--fiscal and otherwise.

The primary reason for the development of the public university was to prepare a substantial segment of the citizen body to engage in pubic discourse--to take a useful part in the exchange of ideas necessary for the effective operation of society and the political system. --Woodruff D. Smith/2/

When you are situated within an ideology, it becomes very difficult to take criticism. --James Hillman/3/

I lobbied for the University Faculty Association (UFA) during the 2003 legislative session. The UFA is the collective bargaining unit at The University of Montana-Missoula. I have previously participated in politics at the local, federal, and international level. However, this was my first real exposure to Montana state politics in action. I am a political scientist; thus, it perhaps goes without saying that the political process fascinates me, including the legislative process. I suppose this should have prepared me. But, this was one of those proverbial cases of knowing something on paper not preparing one emotionally for encountering it in the flesh.

The Montana Senate and House of Representatives are both controlled by the Republicans. Currently, the Republican majority in the Senate is 29/21, and 53/47 in the House. The Republican Party has enjoyed continuous majorities in both bodies since 1993. Governor Judy Martz is also a Republican, as were the previous two Governors, Marc Racicot and Stan Stephens. However, to say that State government, with the exception of the judicial branch, is in the hands of the Republicans does not get at the more important point. What is important to appreciate is that the 2003 legislative process was largely in the hands of those who practice politics in line with a coherent political agenda called the New Right.

The Dominance of New Right Ideology, A Problem of Imbalance

The New Right in the United States is a fusion of several coherent intellectual and political traditions: strong belief in the priority of national interests and heavy reliance on military power for the defense of those interests, libertarian free market economics and trickle-down theories of economic growth, and conservative social and cultural thought. This loose network of social activists, think tanks, religious leaders, media pundits, Republican Party operatives, business leaders, and elected officials have succeeded in moving our country and some of our states in a far right direction. Historians of the New Right trace its origins to the 1950s and '60s. Particularly important events for it were the establishment of National Review by William Buckley in the '50s and the response by staunch conservatives to Barry Goldwater's loss in the 1964 presidential election./4/

In 1964, Goldwater lost the presidential election by a landslide. This generated a debate amongst self-identified strong conservatives. Some argued that they needed to moderate their views so as to align themselves better with public sentiment. Others argued against this, saying that while they might be to the right of current public opinion, they needed to hold firm to their values and conception of the good society. A large and well-funded New Right network has persistently defended a set of key principles, values, and policy preferences over time. The New Right has worked diligently both within and outside the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the course of liberalism and the Democratic Party has experienced a very different history. When George McGovern lost the election in 1972, many around the Democratic Party began the process of moderating their positions. Since the election of Ronald Reagan, significant portions of the Democratic Party leadership have advocated the abandonment of liberalism. The march of the New Right and the so-called "Republican light" strategy of the Democratic Party has resulted, in part, in a rightward march of public policy in this country.

This "radical conservatism" has been in electoral ascendance in Montana since the 1980s. With the election of Martz, and the appointment of key leadership positions in the Montana State Legislature, it reached its zenith to date during the 2003 legislative session. The New Right did not, however, dominate all policy areas. Abortion rights and domestic violence legislation are two examples of policy areas where decisions were not dominated by New Right thinking. My argument is that the key policy concern of the 2003 legislative session was with taxes and spending, and in the struggle to arrive at its ultimate position on these issues, the New Right logic prevailed.

From the 1930s to the '80s most people in this country would have agreed with a statement made by President Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1941, referred to liberalism and conservatism as the "two general schools of political belief" regarding representative government. Today, "conservative" is a respected term in the United States. Polling data routinely report that more people are willing to identify themselves as being conservative than those who identify themselves as liberal. However, the problem for liberals goes much deeper than this imbalance. The very large percentage of citizens who self-identify as moderate, perhaps as much as half the population, have very negative reactions to the term "liberal." Thus, politicians go out of their way to avoid the label. The decline of liberalism as a legitimate political identification has meant that conservatives have been winning by default.

The decline in state and federal revenues relative to the perceived need for public services is a national phenomenon. Legislatures around the country are experiencing the impossibility of continuing to provide services at existing levels without raising new revenues. California's budget deficit is $38.2 billion, or just short of 40% of the annual operating budget. Montana's $230 million shortfall for the 2004-2005 biennium was much less severe in proportional terms.

The main question facing state legislatures across the country in 2003 was how much to cut spending, versus how much to raise taxes. States have decided this question in a variety of ways. We can understand this on a continuum, with cuts in spending and services on one end, and revenues and need for services on the other. The decisions of Montana's Governor and the Legislature put Montana on the extreme edge by cutting both taxes and services.

The New Right in Montana focused its attention on taxes and spending during the 2003 legislative session. It did this based on the ideological conviction that tax cuts and continuing to cut State support for education and public services (especially to the poor) will lead to a healthy economy and a strong conservative social order. After summarizing key events of the 2003 Legislature, I will conclude this article by arguing that the New Right has acted in direct contradiction to some basic conservative principles, most importantly their loyalty to ideology regardless of experience on the ground that challenges their assumptions. In my view, Montana would profit from a return to substantive debates between well-considered conservative and liberal ideas regarding where we want to go and how government can best help us to get there. Debates that clearly lay out competing visions of the good society are needed, as are rigorously rational discussion about the role of government in achieving these visions.

The Basics of the 2003 Legislative Session

The Governor and 2003 Legislature faced a number of clear choices in their design of the 2004-2005 biennium budget. The State was facing its first major budget deficit in over a decade. The reasons for the shortfall, in the language of the Legislative Fiscal Division's Legislative Fiscal Report of the 2005 Biennium, were these:

If the Legislature wanted simply to keep funding going at present levels (adjusted for inflation and increased demand based on increased numbers of people eligible for services, not an expansion of benefits), it was facing a shortfall of over $230 million for the general fund. It is important to remember that money spent by the State of Montana comes from only two sources. One is the general fund, where most of the controversy focuses, since that is where the Legislature and the Governor have significant decisions to make. The general fund for the 2004-2005 biennium is $2.6 billion, or 40% of all State expenditures. The other pile of cash, or 60% of the money, comes from other sources, overwhelmingly the federal government. Another very important fact about public finances in Montana is that Montana remains one of four states without a general sales tax.

The public position of most members of the majority Republican Party and its leadership was that the problem was two-fold. The first part of the problem was short term. Montana was experiencing, along with a host of other states, revenue shortfalls as a result of decreased tax revenues. Republicans argued that the reasons tax revenues were down were the recession and a weak stock market. Although the Montana economy, as usual, was less affected than the national average by the ups and downs of the business cycle, tax revenues from sources such as capital gains taxes were nonetheless down. This problem would go away when the economy recovered. Thus, the last thing Montana should be doing is implementing permanent tax increases for a short-term problem. Governor Martz was a leading proponent of this view.

The second part of the problem from the New Right perspective was that "Montana is over taxed." They argued that the future of the Montana economy is dependent on continuing the process of tax cuts begun in the 1980s. Interestingly, the process was begun by Governor Ted Schwinden, a Democrat, whose first big tax cut was to the coal severance tax, with the goal of stimulating the economy. This process deepened during the '90s as tax cuts were enacted that cut revenues from high-income earners, utilities, business, inheritors of wealth, and from vehicle fees.

New Right advocates argued, correctly, that Montana receives a majority of its tax revenue from high-income earners. Thus, Montana should make every effort to cut taxes on these high-income earners so as to keep those here from leaving and to attract more of them in the future. Senator Bob Depratu (R-Whitefish), Chairman of the Senate Tax Committee, was particularly vocal about this. For example, in his testimony before the House Tax Committee as sponsor of a tax reform bill SB407, he argued that people leave the state due to our extraordinarily high capital gains, business and equipment, and business property taxes. He argued that tax and spend liberals need to wake up and smell the flowers. They needed to stop talking in disparaging terms regarding how Republican tax cuts were designed to provide tax relief to the relatively small number of 17,000 Montana families that make $500,000 or more a year. These people pay 42% of all income taxes. We need to be nicer to the wealthy and lighten their tax burden or they will continue to leave the state and take their revenues with them.

An annual study by the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation found that in 2003 Montana ranks 37th in combined State and local tax collections, at 9.1% of income. Despite this, New Right advocates continue to assert that Montana's income taxes are the "highest in the nation." A good example of this appeared in an editorial page article by Representative Joe Balyeat (R-Bozeman) that was published in the Helena Independent Record on April 27, 2003. This analysis underlies the "No New Taxes" pledge signed by a number of mostly Republican legislators and Governor Martz. On spending cuts, some Republicans stated that they regretted having to cut funding for needed programs. Others, reflecting New Right ideals, simply welcomed the opportunity to "shrink government."

Comprehensive proposals by the Republicans to deal with the budget shortfall included tax reform. However, the Republican tax proposals, with the notable exceptions of those by Senators John Bohlinger (R-Billings) and John Cobb (R-Augusta), tended to be at best revenue neutral. For example, Governor Martz proposed a package that included a 10% across-the-board cut in state income taxes. She proposed paying for this via a statewide sales tax on restaurant meals and drinks, a rental car tax, and doubling the four percent lodging tax. As detailed below, the Republican majority exceeded the obligations of the "no new taxes" pledge, most importantly by passing SB407, which cuts income taxes and may well result in less State revenue, thereby jeopardizing the State's ability to maintain current levels of service, let alone initiate new programs.

Most legislative members of the Democratic Party had a quite different analysis. They argued that the primary cause for Montana's inability to continue to pay for services at present levels, let alone increase them where needed, was the Republican tax cuts of previous years. Thus, most Democrats argued that Montana needed to find new revenue sources that would make the tax burden "fairer" and also raise additional revenues. They argued that making up for the deficit through spending cuts was immoral, shortsighted, and undermined Montana's economic future. It was immoral, for example, to cut mental health services to those who could not afford to pay market rates. And, it was shortsighted to cut the University System, K-12, or State agency budgets because Montana needed to invest in the development of its people if it wanted the economy to grow in the future.

Not surprisingly, both parties argued that they were accurately reflecting the views of the majority of Montanans. For example, Republican Party Chairman Ken Miller asserted that "Republicans are in tune with Montanans, who want State government spending reduced, rather than pay more taxes."/5/ Democrats argued the reverse, saying that it was not only possible to raise taxes in such a way as not to harm Montana's economy but that the majority of Montanans agreed.

At least one poll taken to evaluate public perceptions concerning tax cuts and spending supports the Democratic Party's view. Harstad Strategic Research of Boulder, Colorado, conducted this random and systematic poll for MEA-MFT. MEA-MFT represents public employees, K-12 teachers and school employees, and university faculty. The poll gave low marks to the Legislature on their decisions regarding public education at all levels. The poll asked voters whether they "favor or oppose raising taxes to better fund" various areas of State spending. Sixty-six percent said they favor raising taxes to better fund K-12 public schools; 61% favor raising taxes for better teacher pay; 52% favor raising taxes to better fund public colleges and universities. Democrats argued that raising higher levels of revenue to fund needed public programs would be even more popular if the revenue were raised in progressive ways--for example, if it ended up resulting in property tax relief for homeowners.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no polling data that supports the Republican claim. What they can argue, of course, is that the fact that they are in the majority is a more important "poll" than any other. The Montana Republican Party in general and its leadership in particular has been vociferous and straightforward regarding their positions on these issues. The big question is whether voter opinion has changed. The answer will come in 2004.

The two contending views played themselves out over and over again as specific bills were debated. One important example was the debate over the business equipment tax that occurred early in the session. Senator Dan Harrington's (D-Butte) Senate Bill 12 would have frozen the business equipment tax where it was at three percent. In 1999, the Montana Legislature passed a law that continued to lower the property taxes on business equipment from six percent to three percent. The law also provided that the tax would drop to two percent one year, to one percent the next year, and zero in the third year if an economic trigger in the law is met. The trigger is that State salaries and wages, adjusted for inflation, be at least 2.85% greater than in the previous year.

Senator Harrington's bill was killed in committee on a near party line vote, with Senator Bohlinger voting with the Democrats, as he did so often. A similar bill to Harrington's, House Bill 268 by Representative Ron Erickson, (D-Missoula) was also killed. Particularly important from an analytical perspective is that Senator Jon Ellingson (D-Missoula) put forward a proposal that would have made the business equipment tax more progressive and would have raised additional revenue. He wanted a business tax increase on larger businesses and cuts for small and medium businesses. This too was defeated./6/

Democrats, aided by some Republican members, argued with the New Right majority over revenue and spending. A case in point was the Governor's budget proposal that dealt with the deficit through a combination of cuts ($130 million) and borrowing from the coal trust fund ($93 million). The coal trust fund was established in the 1970s, and taxes coal mining, putting the proceeds into a trust fund. Spending of the money is tightly controlled. Overcoming those controls requires a three-fourths vote of the Legislature; this was not achieved during the 2003 legislative session, despite numerous efforts. Interestingly, liberal Democrats such as Erickson took the lead in arguing against using coal tax money. The arguments used were classic conservative ones about being prudent regarding the spending of savings and Montana's long-term need to sustain high dividend earning from coal trust investment.

The 2003 session had numerous debates regarding comprehensive tax reform. By long-time reporter Charles Johnson's count, there were seven comprehensive tax proposals, and all of them died./7/ In the end, the Republican majority ended up using SB407 as its primary tax reform vehicle. The New Right claimed it to be a success of which they could be proud and about which Montanans should celebrate. SB407 raises an additional $40 million in 2004 and $24 million in 2005 by raising sales taxes on cigarettes and accommodations (campgrounds, motels, hotels).

SB407 would have raised much more money for the general fund except for the fact that New Right Republicans insisted on giving a large amount of it back in 2004 and 2005 in the form of tax cut. As New Right advocate Balyeat proudly pointed out in an editorial page article published in the Helena Independent Record of April 27, 2003, the top income tax rate was lowered from 11% to 6.9%, and the top capital gain tax rate lowered from 11% to 4.9%. Even more important, by 2006, due to additional income tax breaks, the affect on the general fund is, according to the legislative fiscal note, about none (less than a million dollars) and by 2007 the state is actually going to be losing revenue ($14 million).

Balyeat, and many other New Right Republican legislators argued that all Montanans will benefit--indeed that SB407 represents a victory for all Montanans because their tax rates are cut, too. In actual dollar differentials, of course, those who pay the most in taxes will benefit the most from the reductions in rates./8/

SB407 is celebrated by the New Right perspective for three reasons. First, they say the Montana tax structure becomes "more just." Second, these tax cuts will stimulate economic activity in our state. Third, and most important from the New Right perspective, this means, to quote Balyeat, "Longterm, SB407 will thus restrain government growth."

Reflecting the logic of President George W. Bush and the Republican majorities in our nation's Congress, the prediction here is that the economy is going to rebound, in part due to the tax cut stimulus. As the economy grows, so will State revenues from taxes. As the economy grows, demands for some expensive State services, such as many of the services provided for in the Health and Human Services budget, will go down. If they are wrong, the Legislature will be right back at the same business of trying to patch holes in the 2005 legislative session.

Most Democrats were skeptical regarding the optimism of the New Right Republicans. Some fiscal conservatives, such as Representative Dave Lewis (R-Helena), also expressed concern. An important nonpartisan voice came from Terry Johnson, revenue expert for the Legislative Fiscal Division. "We're very, very nervous about achieving those (revenue) estimates because of the level of economic activity at the national level."/9/ But concern based on sound economic modeling is no match for the faith that New Right ideologues place on the magic of tax cuts.

House Speaker Doug Mood (R-Seeley Lake) expressed confidence that financial recovery will occur and Montana's budget squeeze will evaporate in 2005. "I don't want a permanent tax increase for what is being presented to me as a one-time problem in revenue shortfall." Governor Martz agreed. "For the first time in decades, tax reform has been accomplished in some form, and that gives us a start in probably the direction the state needs to go to attract business and retain business."/10/

In the end, the 58th Legislature resolved the deficit by increasing revenue by $130 million, cutting spending by $104 million, relying on one-time only revenues, and reducing the reserve a little. The increased spending was accomplished mostly through SB407. The other piece of major legislation was HB363 that authorized a one-time transfer of $26.3 million from the State workers' compensation insurance fund. The $104 million in reductions contained in HB2 reflects an average reduction of 4.3% below present law. All the big-ticket items took hits: higher education, K-12 public education, corrections, and (once again) human services./11/

What are the implications of all this for faculty salaries and benefits? It certainly pushed raises off the table. But, then, most of us who were paying attention knew this going into the session. It also pushed an adequate cost of living increase off the table. Because salaries are determined by campus negotiations, the details will vary. At UM-Missoula, it meant zero percent the first year and $500 to base the second year. The amount of the second year increase was not randomly plucked out of the sky. It is the exact amount authorized for State employees in HB13. There were times during the session when those of us lobbying for a better pay hike for public employees dared to hope that we might achieve more. However, when the State pay plan (HB13) went to joint committee at the end of the session, it was stripped of a proposal to raise wages by 45 cents an hour effective January 1, 2004. When the bill came out of committee, it contained 25 cents an hour effective January 1, 2005. That is where the $500 figure comes from. As for health care, HB13 will cover increased premium costs for the employee but not for the family. So, for those of us with families, there goes at least half of the $500.

What about student tuition? The Legislature and the Governor decide the appropriation, but it is up to the Board of Regents to decide how to adjust to the appropriation. These were their choices: cut programs, raise tuition, raise additional funds from other sources. The University System is divided into two branches, the University of Montana's campuses and those of Montana State. UM ended up being $21 million short and MSU $24 million short. The Board of Regents agreed in May to a proposal from university leaders that raises about $39 million through tuition increases. Students at MSU are going to be particularly hard hit, with tuition rising by 24.5% over two years. It is important to remember that this is coming on the heels of an average 30% raise for the MSU system over the last two years. In other words, we are looking at tuition increases of about 50% in four years./12/ Tuition increases, not counting substantial fee increases, have totaled 220% since 1992. This means that tuition and fees have more than tripled since the early '90s and have resulted in, among other things, higher debt loads. Furthermore, while numbers do not exist, it stands to reason that we have reached the point that we are pricing some students out of a college education. In direct response to cuts in State spending, higher education now is more expensive for in-state students than it is for a number of institutions in surounding states./13/ The privitization of education is in line with New Right ideology.

The Terms of Debate During the 2003 Legislative Session

At the outset of the session, an experienced Helena hand pulled me aside and gave me some prophetic advice. He insisted that the biggest mistake that lobbyists were about to make was to rely on the power of rational discourse when trying to change the vote of legislative ideologues. He did not have any answers when asked what would work during the session. He suggested that the project was more long term than the next 90 days. It has to do with changing the makeup of the Legislature and who occupies the Governor's mansion. It has to do with changing the terms of debate about what good government is and what government's relationship is to economic development and more broadly, the good society.

The Republicans had the votes--in the Senate, the House, and the Governor's mansion. Thus, compromise was at their option, an option their leadership chose not to take. The results of the 2003 Legislature on budget matters were almost entirely of the New Right's making.

The most dramatic and revealing moment of the entire legislative session came when Senator Cobb took on his own Republican Party and the Governor. Cobb did not use the term "New Right," or "Far Right," but that was what he was criticizing. It happened towards the end of the session, on April 8th. For years Cobb has been widely recognized as the legislative Health and Human Services budget expert. I have also heard him referred to by members of both parties as "the conscience of the Senate." Cobb is an extraordinary man, a rancher from the Rocky Mountain front between Augusta and Choteau who has fought long and hard for low income Montanans.

The occasion for this most dramatic and revealing moment was just after the New Right Governor and Senate leadership had frustrated his efforts to restore $15 million to subsidized day care programs. The following are excerpts from what he had to say that were printed in every major daily in the state:

He went on to say that he continued to consider himself a conservative and a Republican. However, the Republican Party had been hijacked by ideologues. Furthermore, he predicted, the Republican Party was signing its death sentence because Montanans were not going to stand for the results of the 2003 Legislature. "All we do is live on ideology. We have no new ideas. We just want to cut, cut, cut, and we're just being really stupid about this." He added that he thought it likely that the Democratic Party would get its act together and provide new vision for the state. Someone sure needed to.

New Right Republicans of course responded. The Governor held a press conference and asserted that Republicans do care about social programs. She insisted that she wished no harm on anyone but the State could not spend money it did not have and that the future of all Montanans depended on "no new taxes." The chairman of the Republican Party claimed that that they were doing only what was necessary, and in the process reflecting the will of the majority who believed that "government can and should be cut." Some New Right Republicans went so far as to assert that Cobb was mentally unbalanced or had perhaps had a momentary breakdown. This was widely reported in the press.

In the days following this event Cobb went on to use his knowledge of contemporary legislative history to debunk the ideological positions of the New Right. He pointed out that the part of Montana's budget paid for by Montanans had been shrinking for two decades. This is a critical argument, for it directly undermines the claims of the New Right. The question remains regarding how many people took notice and understood what Cobb had to say and will vote on the basis of it.

Here are some of the facts that Cobb and others presented in the window of press opportunity created by the air of scandal. In 1984, State general fund spending equaled about 5.8% of total income in the state. Today, it is down to about five percent, despite increased spending on the criminal justice system. Cobb pointed out that many State government services had been cut in the past two decades. The dollar amount may be increasing, but we're spending less and less of our wealth on government and the services it provides for the public and people in need.

New Right ideologues argued against this position. A great example is that of Senator Dan McGee (R-Laurel). He stated on the Senate floor that "fiscal responsibility is when your costs keep going up and your revenue is either stagnant or comes down...and what you do is tighten your belt.... Every time we vote an increase...we go back to our taxpayers and we say, 'Pony up again.' ...please just remember all the taxpayers back home, who are trying to raise their families."

McGee went on to argue that the Senate, by voting down Cobb's proposed increase, was acting on behalf of Montana taxpayers, protecting them from the ever expanding voracious appetite of "liberals." It is extremely common for New Right politicians to refer to taxpayers, not citizens. The New Right claims to protect the taxpayer. McGee argued that if the Senate were to go on to approve the budget as is, without any new additions such as Cobb's, it would still be up $560 million over the previous biennium budget. The problem with McGee's argument is that these increases are largely funded by the federal government and thus done at no or little cost to Montanans. The New Right never makes this point but rather does everything in their power to obscure it.

The fact is that the biggest single chunk of this proposed increase, almost half of it, was in a Health and Human service budget that was increasing due to the economic downturn, making more people eligible for services. In other words, it is not that people were going to get more services. It was just that more people qualified because of growing poverty and lack of health insurance in our state. Furthermore, almost all of the increase in human services will be paid for by the federal government! Another $150 million is for highway construction funds that come from fuel taxes that have not been increased in recent memory and three-fourths of which come from the federal government. Yet another $100 million of the increases are due to accounting changes that transfer spending to the State from the federal government. In other words, no real change in spending habits. An additional $65 million comes directly from the federal government for education, principally the "No Child Left Behind" initiative.

What New Right people such as McGee refuse to acknowledge is that Montanans are hardly under assault by the State taxman. If Montanans are suffering from increased taxes, they are in the form of local property taxes. Homeowner and small business property taxes have more than doubled since the early 1990s. People are mad about this. But, what needs to be understood is that these increased property taxes are primarily to pay for K-12 public education, and the reason this is necessary is that the state has been cutting revenues to local schools. Increased property taxes on homeowners and main-street businesses are simply picking up the slack. What we have in Montana is a tax shift, principally away from business and on to homeowners and some owners of commercial property. There has not been a significant increase in State taxes since 1993./14/ As explained elsewhere in this article, what has been happening is just the reverse, tax freezes and tax cuts.

It is my observation that representatives of the New Right, when confronted with these kinds of arguments, tended to respond with vague rhetoric. One instance of this stands out for me. It was at a hearing of the Senate Tax Committee. I had just testified, arguing that the Legislature had a clear choice to make between continuing to fund higher education at current (present law) levels or increasing tuition, again. The hearing was to debate the merits of the business equipment tax. Several of us made the argument that when the 1999 legislation had passed a bill that cut the tax in half, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Mike Taylor (R-Rollins), argued that cutting the tax would actually increase State revenues by stimulating growth. At that time, the Legislative Fiscal Division had given specific numbers about how much and what kind of economic growth would be necessary for the tax cut to be neutral or generate new revenues. Clearly, all agreed, the targets had not been met. We argued that there was no reason to believe that continuing to cut this tax would do in the future what it had failed to do in the past.

Senator Taylor's response was that without the 1999 cuts, the State budget situation would be even worse than it was now. No empirical facts or results of economic modeling were provided. With no evidence of any kind presented, based on conjecture in support of strong ideological convictions, the New Right won the vote because they had the numbers./15/ Montana's legislative politics have been reduced to decisions based by those with the most votes without the burdens of proof required by the dictates of rational argument, or maybe even common sense, practical experience, or simply prudence.

This brings us right back to the argument between Cobb and the New Right Republicans. Cobb insisted throughout the session that he was a conservative and it was the New Right ideologues who were out of step with conservative values. He is right. One of the hallmarks of conservative thinking is to be cautious. This means for traditional conservatives like Cobb that tax cuts must pay for themselves or you must be able to cut expenditures without seriously harming the public interest.

On April 14, another revealing debate took place. One of the Senate's most eloquent and informed voices, Senator Ellingson, proposed an amendment to HJR2 by Senator Bob Story (R-Park City). HJR2 contained the revenue projections for the biennium. For the 2003 budget crisis to go away by 2005, a number of projections will have to come true. Individual income tax collections needed to rise about 6.8% per year, and corporate income tax by almost 44% over two years, after plummeting more than 30% in 2003./16/

Senator Ellingson argued, consistent with the position taken by the Legislative Fiscal Division, that the revenue projections were unrealistic./17/ Thus, he argued in the amendment that the Senate should exert leadership and cut $24 million from the budget. If not, the Senate was "buying itself a special session." The New Right asked what Ellingson would have them do. He replied that they needed to find real revenue sources. He said that there were plenty of ideas out there, adding that his own preference was one of the comprehensive tax proposals, SB470. In response to his proposal, New Right senators had a number of things to say. Senator Depratu asserted "We will turn the economy around" so not to worry. Senator William Glasser (R-Huntley) said he was an optimist and that the Senate should defeat the amendment. Senator Taylor said the same. Senator Fred Thomas (R-Stevensville) said he was "so optimistic he thought we were underestimating revenues." Ellingson's proposal was defeated.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Politics in Montana needs spirited debate that honestly exposes values and discusses them. The New Right has been extremely good at putting forward a moral vision and pursuing it via programs and policies that they constantly defend in terms of that moral vision, with scant reference to empirical evidence that their program is actually working. Liberals also develop policy positions with reference to a moral vision, but their elaboration of this vision has been muted. Thus, they are often limited to critiquing, with reference to empirical evidence, the failures of the New Right agenda.

I conclude that the primary reason for this is that their philosophical reference point has been branded as negative. Thus, the best you usually hear is some vague reference to something called "progressive," whatever that is. When most folks hear the word "conservative," it makes sense to them; the term conjures up a clear image. The same cannot be said for "progressive." And, while people may think they know what "liberal" means, very few public figures are willing to associate themselves with the term because of its negative connotations.

The result of this is that New Right conservatives have carried the day. On August 13, 2003, Governor Martz held a press conference, finally ending speculation by announcing that she would not seek reelection. With specific reference to economic development, health care, and changes in the tax code, she concluded that "I have accomplished what I set out to do. I have enacted my vision." She is correct.

The New Right is the most powerful movement in America. It has been successful at shifting public opinion in its direction, and is today aided by significant sectors of the mass media, particularly television. It has developed successful electoral strategies that have won many battles at the local, state, and national levels. In politics, the war is never over, but today we would have to say that the New Right is winning. The New Right currently occupies the White House, large sectors of the Republican majorities in Congress and both the executive and legislative branches in Helena.

From a liberal perspective, the implications of this for public policy have been terrible. In Montana, it has resulted in a tax shift to property owners and away from large businesses. There are still New Right advocates who defend deregulation of the utilities, arguing that, in the long run, it is in the public interest. Public services have suffered. In the realm of higher education, it pursued, without a blush, the march toward privatization./18/

Montanans, including those of us who work in higher education, have had and will continue to have important choices to make. Shall we continue along present lines? Do we want another person in the Governor's mansion who will more or less continue our present course? Will we again vote in a Republican legislative majority that despite its diversity of opinion ends up more often than not deciding critical issues based on a false conservativism? Or, will the voters of this state look for a change in direction?

George Lakoff, Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, has developed an insightful analysis of the conservative and liberal views. Lakoff describes the conservative view with reference to the "strict father family." The world is a dangerous and difficult place. Evil exists, and in order to avoid its temptations and threats, individuals and governments must be morally strong and disciplined. The government should take on the role of the strict disciplinary father. Punishment is not only permissible but required if moral rectitude is to be cultivated in the citizenry. The citizenry are conceived as children who will only become self-reliant through discipline and the pursuit of self-interest. The notion of self-interest is critical here. Pursuit of self-interest is a moral act, and if everyone does it, the interests of all will be realized. Competition in the marketplace is the prime location for this disciplined self-interest. Government must demand that individuals rise or fall on their own merits. As the father figure, it must defend and protect the country, via military expenditures and the criminal justice system. However, it is morally bound not to enable the weak to eschew responsibility. Thus, social welfare programs are not only costly, they undermine the moral fabric of the family. Environmental protections and taxes are suspect, for they interfere with the pursuit of individual self-interest.

It is important to add to this that the epistemology of true conservatives is based on experience. Based on experience, conservatives argue that we must be careful in our public policy aims. There is a deep suspicion of public policy based on aspiration, and on idealistic and universal claims. If efforts at what present day conservatives call "social engineering" cannot be resisted, then at a minimum they need to be tentative and subject to hard-headed evaluation based on empirical data.

Liberals, or progressives as they liked to be called these days, assume that the world should be a nurturing place. Government should nurture the citizenry. Empathy and responsibility for others less fortunate or able replaces the conservative notion of strict discipline. Liberals are thus in favor of creating the conditions of nurture. They are anxious to protect the young, the infirm, and the environment from the vicissitudes of the marketplace. Like conservatives, liberals value safety. But, unlike conservatives, liberals believe it is best pursued through gun control, community policing, safe workplaces, consumer protections, and safe water, air, and food. Freedom is likewise also important, but liberals focus on civil liberties for vulnerable populations and victims of past transgressions. The danger to safety and freedom comes from the powerful, not from the weak moral fiber of the relatively powerless.

Also, the epistemology of liberalism tends to be rationalist; hence, liberals embrace universal political and moral principles. Liberals are comfortable with, and in fact argue for the necessity of, politics that holds certain truths to be self-evident. There are certain innate ideas that are simply good and worth pursuing. They are, in contrast with conservatives, idealistic about human nature and regard government as capable of rising to the challenge of the progressive realization of the human potential.

The quality of the public sphere in America and Montana has suffered from lack of honest and rigorous debate between well-considered liberal and conservative ideas--ideas about where we have been, where we are now, and where we want to try to arrive, and ideas about how which public policies are the best means to whatever ends we decide upon. Politics today has suffered greatly from a naÏve and intellectually lazy New Right that continues to argue in favor of tax cuts and trickle down economics regardless of the empirical evidence--a betrayal of the conservative tradition which they claim to represent. Furthermore, the public sphere has suffered from what I think of as "the politics of timidity" practiced by too many within the Democratic Party.

What will be the role of those of us in higher education? Most faculty have benefited immensely from high levels of public investment in our ability to think carefully--on paper and out loud. Hopefully, this training has included attention to values and how they are pursued through public policy. There is a need for more faculty members to turn attention to the public sphere, thereby contributing to elevating the terms of debate. In the upcoming electoral cycle, many candidates may determine it to be too risky to wear and explain the "liberal" label. However, as academics, we have an obligation to identify our philosophical, epistemological, and political positions and to make rational arguments regarding public policy proposals and evaluation of those proposals that are enacted into law. Tenure was originally created to facilitate honest inquiry, wherever it might lead. I would suggest that it is time for liberal faculty members who might feel cowed by the current chill in the air against the public expression of unpopular ideas to take advantage of their tenure. I think it critically important that faculty members--whether they identify with the left, liberalism, conservativism, libertarianism, or whatever--to speak their minds in the public sphere. I am talking about contributing in the broad public sphere, not writing in academic journals with small circulations amongst fellow specialists./19/

There are a number of issues to wrestle with. First, and perhaps foremost, is the dogged problem of tax and spend. Many of us, myself included, bemoan the fact that so much of politics has been reduced to the logic of money. But changing this cannot be done from some fantasized starting place. It has to be done from where we are, and where we are is and will continue to be preoccupied with getting the proper balance within and between taxing and spending.

Should the Democrats win big in 2004, they would then be faced with a difficult situation. Even current Senate President Bob Keenan (R-Bigfork) referred to the budget that he had a major hand in assembling as being held together with "baling wire and duct tape." He is correct. The budget relies heavily on one-time sources of money--about $130 million--that won't be there in two years. Should rosy revenue projections prove wrong and should the business and equipment tax reduction be reached, Senator Ellingson has estimated that the next legislative session could be confronting an unprecedented deficit of nearly $300 million. It is a whole lot easier to cut taxes than it is to raise taxes. But, the 39th Legislature will probably have to do it.

To do it right they will have to make sure they get the message out that the increased revenues derive from raising taxes in a progressive way and that the money is being used for services that benefit a broad cross section of Montanans. Progressive taxation means taxing people on a sliding scale upward, so that higher income people not only pay higher taxes, it means that the tax rate increases. A person making a million dollars a year is going to pay more taxes on the second $250,000 than he or she did on the first $250,000 and so forth.

Oliver Wendell Homes once quipped that "taxes are the price of civilization." It is time for liberals to advance and defend this conception again. The timidity of liberals on the question of taxation can hardly be overstated. When increased taxation is promoted by liberals, it is too often done in a philosophical vacuum. They pick easy targets. For example, we need sin taxes so that we can have education. Liberals need to get back into the habit of defending taxes as the dues you pay to live in this great country and state. They are the dues we pay, each according to our ability, for our democracy. We pay taxes to help ensure a level playing field, for example, to make sure that even low income kids get a shot at a college education. It is also worth pointing out that the wealthy benefit disproportionately from government services. This is how George Lakoff explains the logic of progressive taxation:

In looking toward the future, it is important that those who would like to see the state move in a more liberal, or progressive, public policy direction begin thinking about how best to respond to the revenue and fiscal picture. The New Right has worked diligently over the last decade to undermine State government. In particular, they have undermined State government's commitment to subsidize the cost of higher education, provide adequate funding to maintain Montana's K-12 public education program, and provide health and human services to low income people. Moreover, the negative affects of utilities deregulation have not yet been felt in full force.

Reversing this trend in a very low wage state and remaining popular will not be easy. The New Right has worked diligently and effectively since the 1970s to shape a public opinion in which people tend to think of themselves as taxpayers rather than citizens. Expressions of citizenship are largely restricted to times of war. Thus, should a new Governor and a new Legislature take steps to rebuild State government, the New Right should be counted on to define this as a tax increase, which is deemed to be very bad. There is an opportunity here for the intelligent framing of issues and articulate explanations that can readily be comprehended by the media and the public. People who want to be seriously engaged in the future of this state need to put their minds to this challenge and articulate their views in the public sphere./21/

One challenge for those of us in higher education is to make the case for increased investment for higher education within and outside the business community. I endeavored to do this by lobbying on the basis of three purposes. I argued that higher education:

Obviously, given the outcomes, these arguments fell on deaf hears. So, two things occur to me. One, that we make better arguments or do a better job of getting these and similar arguments more often inserted into the public discourse. Two, that we work to help get people elected to office that value education and other elements of civilized society.

In the absence of alternative and coherent voices speaking in broad terms, the New Right holds the floor. I encourage Montana's faculty who are unhappy with this direction to participate more often and more deeply in the political process. Faculty should join with others to improve the public process and return it to a forum for all Montanans to build better lives for our children, our entire communities, and ourselves.