Building A Road, Or Party Power?

I will once again urge those of us on the more leftward side of issues to read more conservative Montana blogs.  And no, I am not talking about the site'o'stupid.  MTPolitics, The Montana Misanthrope and Montana Headlines are, of course, well within our radar.  The Montana Conservative and The Western Word should be as well.  It is the latter, to which I address this post.

It seems our resident REO fan has to take issue with Senator Baucus because Baucus procured funding for the rebuild of the Going to the Sun highway, without making certain that all the money would come to Montana companies.  Montana companies that apparently don't have the qualifications required are ... unhappy ... about this turn of events.  How tragic.  The Federal Highway Administration has set the baseline of requirements so high that Montana firms are excluded from being the general (prime) contractor on the project.  It looks for all the world like only two US companies have the qualifications required.  Jack the Blogger (who annoyingly refers to himself in the third person) appears to think that this is some kind of outrage on the part of our Senior Senator.  Wulfgar the Blogger's response is a hardy "SO WHAT"?

Here's our points of agreement:

1)  The Going to the Sun road needs repair/rebuild.

2)  It is, exactly as Kaiser described it, a "unique project because it's so mountainous, it's environmentally sensitive, and it's dangerous."

3)  Montana firms will get considerable amounts of subcontractor work out of the 10 year project.

The points of disagreement are rather more telling.

A)  Glacier National Park is Federal property.  They (the Feds) can require whatever they wish in a contractor to rebuild Federal property.  If they want a contractor who understands rose hybridization, they have the right and duty to request such.  Baucus has no say in that.

B)  It's kinda icks me out that Montana business persons would whine so much about not receiving pork.

C)  If Baucus had procured rules that favor Montana contractors, it would be seen (and really would have been) nothing more than a pork project.  Does Jack the Blogger really favor such things?

D)  Jack writes:

the Feds have written the language so restrictive that Montana companies cannot compete for the job as prime contractors. They can only pick up slivers of the multi-million contract as subcontractors.

???  Slivers?  It's a 50 million dollar project.  I'd take "slivers" of that in a heartbeat.  Subcontractors can make significant amounts of money on any project.  Please, let's define the slivers before we bitch, okay?

E)  Bird in the Hand.  More Montanans will get jobs out of this project.  Period.  That's a given.  But Jack laments:

hundreds of jobs for Montanans are lost over the next 10 years because of the “more powerful” Federal Highway Administration.

How in the hell do you know that?  You don't.  There's nothing in the article written that says that.  The Montana contracting firms interviewed are pissed because they could have made more money (profit)  as the general contractor.  There is nothing to suggest that Montanans will lose jobs (or more accurately, job opportunities) because of this.  Get real.

Nope, I think if you look at it rationally, Jack is playing party politics.  If we had Burns in place, then the fantastical might have happened.  Who the hell knows.  What is certain is this.  The GTTS rebuild will bring tourist dollars.  Montanans will get jobs rebuilding the road.  Montana firms will prosper because of this project.  And, we all agree, it needs to take place.  I'm having a hard time seeing the downside here.

Comments

[Shane C. Mason]

Eew. That Montana Conservative site is icky.

[Cece]

Have I told you lately that I love you and your way?
,blockquote>It's a 50 million dollar project. I'd take "slivers" of that in a heartbeat.

Keep telling it like it is my friend.

Glacier is a National Park, and while we might feel that it belongs to us alone, having romped around it as children, why should Montanans get more of a shot at reubilding it, if our techniques are not up to par?

When you make the decision to take a personal hit in terms of price, to rebuild something you love, then you can squak at me.

[Gee Guy]

Is it a "hardy "SO WHAT," or a hearty "So what?"

And, I hate to be self-centered, but if I am not a conservative blog, what am I? Or are you just ignoring me because I have dropped into the What's Right in Montana category?

[Wulfgar]

Is it a "hardy "SO WHAT," or a hearty "So what?"

Either one makes the point. And sorry for not listing you. Hell, I just figured that everybody reads you anyway, regardless of affiliation.

Besides, I thought you were a print journalist now ... ;-)

[Gee Guy]

I was hoping you'd say either one makes the point! For a guy who says "asshat" as much as you do, I enjoy your subtlety.

And don't insult me by calling me a journalist! :)