Take time to appreciate our American veterans

To the editor:

This weekend we celebrate an important day for America's veterans. Veterans Day is dedicated to honoring the sacrifice of the millions of Americans who have bravely served for our country's freedom. Each year, thousands of families from all over the country come out in their red, white and blue, proud to wave our flag, and recognize the heroes of America's past and present.

As this weekend approaches, now is a great time to reflect on the ability we have, as Americans, to do the simple things. We're able to enjoy the right to vote, freedom of speech, and many other privileges we take for granted in our day-to-day lives — thanks to the sacrifices of those who have served. These are privileges our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to fight for still today.

In Congress, I'm working to honor our former soldiers by ensuring they're offered the best quality healthcare. Many of these individuals have suffered or continue to suffer from severe injuries and personal trauma resulting from years of fighting for the country they love and I believe it's critical we're getting them the care they deserve.

True heroes should never be forgotten. So, this Sunday take a moment to appreciate this great country we live in and those who've fought to keep it that way. Finally, if you see a veteran, make sure to say thanks.

Denny Rehberg / Montana's Congressman

Property tax reform must first help Montanans

One thing is for sure about the 2009 property tax reappraisal: Montanans want their property taxes regulated, mitigated and expect to be treated equally.

The free market approach to paying for required local services needs simple regulation and oversight. Folks across the political spectrum are saying that deregulation has not worked. Deregulation has been bad for electricity bills, insurance premiums and gas prices at the pump and it's just as expensive on homeowners' property taxes.

Farmlands and timberlands are taxed on the productive value of the land. Homes and businesses are taxed on the free market. The value of homes built in our communities will determine the market.

I asked for help ideas on property tax solutions and the comments are genuine and informative. I expected the good folks from Whitefish, Columbia Falls and Kalispell to e-mail and call, as our areas are growing like the dickens. But the outpouring came from across Montana, small towns and big cities alike.

Some folks talk about taxing homes, like farmland, and on the productive value with a roll back provision when the land converts uses. Others want to preserve a good source of funding for schools and local services.

Montanans mostly talk about better defining and increasing the amount of exemption from the market value of their home and downtown business. Of establishing residency requirements and decreasing tax rates while phasing in the market valuation over a longer time frame.

Interesting ideas are coming from what other areas are actually doing. Some states instituted a 2 to 4 percent cap on the growth of the market value of homes. Others re-appraise homes upon the resale of the property and base any new valuation on current market conditions. But without a proper growth rate, no doubt our kids would see the same red ink from deficient infrastructure as the state where the policies currently exist.

Montana offers caps on the growth of market values based upon household income, as well as credits off one's income taxes based on age. Energy conservation credits for homes also exist. Sadly, most homeowners have not heard how easily these incentives apply. Folks who were aware explained of the need for broader appeal and expansion.

A sales-ration analysis during the reappraisal process would help determine the media valuations for given geographic areas. It helps assure that homes are not appraised higher than actual market conditions per area, as some homes are more recreational in nature, while others serve as primary residence.

Any approach to reform must first help Montanans. To assure that retired homeowners can actually afford to retire in their home and ensure school kids continue to prosper and emergency services remain active. To encourage folks who are out-of-state residents, lucky enough to own a home in beautiful Montana, to spend an extra month here and become a local and declare residency, register to vote and claim a homestead exemption in Montana.

From all the talk, residency appears to be an integral tool in the property tax debate. Non-residents appreciate our way of life, help fund public education but do not help shoulder the cost of fighting wildfires, fund mental health, higher education or provide funds for infrastructure or to keep our waters clean and our public land open.

Many non-residents are honorable and quite benevolent as exemplified in actions across Whitefish, with the recent spree of private-public partnerships projects which built theaters, community centers, ice rinks, skate parks, bike paths and pools; other communities are not so lucky.

Regulatory tools, like caps on the growth of homeowner property taxes, increased exemptions and homestead declarations, are much-needed tools to mitigate the free market of property taxes and will help Montanans.

I'll keep working with our governor and any willing legislator and continue to ask for help from Montanans in coming up with solutions to the property tax reappraisals. Regardless, the outcome will no doubt still work toward market based solutions as they offer a concrete mean to secure equality.

Montana is lucky that both Democrats and Republicans on the state committee charged with property tax reappraisals are working toward solutions for the 2009 Legislature. If you hear of other good ideas on the subject please send me an e-mail to mjopek@mt.gov.

Mike Jopek is an independent-minded farmer and is a Democrat who represents the Whitefish area in the Legislature.

Health insurance — legitimate object of government

"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but can not do at all, or can not so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities." - Abraham Lincoln

In Lincoln's day the endeavors that would benefit the individual and nation together were such things as national defense, protection of commerce, and providing for the public safety. Obviously, the American government still provides those services today, but we are able to provide them with tools which would amaze the people of Lincoln's time.

What hasn't changed is the principle that when a significant majority of the American people wants their government to provide a service for them, it should be incumbent on their elected officials to see that it is done. I am here to argue that government guaranteed health care insurance for every American is "a legitimate object of government."

Politicians haven't really been eager to deal with sweeping health care change after the Clinton health care plan debacle of 1996. But what was the substance of that debacle when it comes right down to it? It was the monolithic unwillingness of the behemoth American health insurance industry to sacrifice profit for the common good.

Their mantra has been, then and now, "Let the system work, let the 'market' take care of it; we don't need government interference." But in 11 years since the Clinton plan sank to the bottom of the ocean there really hasn't been an appreciable change in getting Americans heath care coverage.

Whatever changes have been accepted, whatever ideas have been floated, have had one fatal flaw in common: They have all been expected to work within the parameters of a failed system. In short, as long as the health insurance industry can keep making a profit we can try anything, but whatever threatens that profit is a non-starter.

At some point the profit motive has to yield to the national interest.

New ideas are defeated by the "death of 1,000 cuts." The method is to create uncertainty about so many issues so that the whole issue seems just too complicated. There are too many unknowns, too many possibilities of failure; it is anti-business, anti-consumer and anti-American.

We are told that it will raise taxes. We are not told it would also lower the amount that individual Americans pay for health care.

Instead of trying to maintain some version of the status quo, health insurers should be looking at bold ways to correct that failure, and one of those ways, maybe the only one, is to work within the framework of government guaranteed health care insurance.

Elliott is a state senator from Trout Creek in his 15th year of legislative service, and is chairman of the Senate Taxation Committee.