Governor Greg Gianforte, Senator Josh Kassmier, R-Fort Benton, and local ag producers are urging support for reforms to the business equipment tax. Gov. Gianforte and Sen. Kassmier support a reform to permanently eliminate the tax’s burden for an additional 700 small businesses, family farms, and family ranches.

“With hardworking Montanans in mind, we’re once again prioritizing historic business equipment tax relief, eliminating this tax burden for more Montana small businesses and family farms and ranches,” Gov. Gianforte said. “Taxing critical business equipment makes it harder to grow a small business and is a wet blanket on job creation. Let’s continue our progress to eliminate the burden.”

Since 2021, Sen. Kassmier has led the charge in the Legislature to ease the burden of the business equipment tax for small businesses and family farms and ranches. Between 2021 and 2023, then-Rep. Kassmier sponsored bills, which the governor signed into law that expanded the business equipment tax exemption from $100,000 to $1,000,000 eliminating the business equipment tax burden for more than 5,000 small businesses, farms, and ranches.

“This is important because inflation keeps hitting these farms and ranches, the price of equipment keeps rising, and it doesn’t take long to get to $1 million with just a couple pieces of equipment. Raising the exemption to $3 million will help get another 700 farmers and ranchers off this tax roll and allow them to be able to invest in their operations and employees,” Sen. Kassmier said. “I appreciate the governor’s work and leadership on this, and I look forward to raising the exemption.”

During a visit to Circle View Farms in Fort Benton, Gov. Gianforte and Sen. Kassmier met with fourth-generation owner Brent Hanford on the importance of raising the exemption to take more farms and ranches off the business equipment tax roll.

“The business equipment tax is taxing equipment you bought with money that was already taxed. It shouldn’t be happening in the first place, but raising it from $1 million to $3 million would greatly help, especially small farms and ranches and businesses – to keep that money to put back into the business to keep it going,” Hanford said.

The governor and senator also heard from Eric Gray, owner of Heartland Seed and farmer in Highwood.

“I’ve been really lucky. As I’ve gotten into farming over the last few years here, and back helping my dad on his operation, I’ve been able to start accumulating my own equipment line and the business equipment tax has been stepped up, so I haven’t had to worry about it. So, increasing the exemption will only continue to help,” Gray said.

Gray continued, “When you start looking at $500,000 to $1 million for a combine, depending on what you buying, $1 million are for the exemption doesn’t go very far – you can tie that up in a hurry.”

Montana’s business equipment tax requires small businesses and family farms and ranches to reallocate resources, which they would otherwise use to invest in their operation and create jobs, to pay a tax on the equipment and machinery they need to operate.

The business equipment tax also imposes a costly compliance burden, with businesses required to inventory and report their equipment to the state each year.

Reducing the burden of the business equipment tax on Montanans, Sen. Kassmier’s Senate Bill 322 continues to encourage business investment and promote job creation. The bill was scheduled to be heard in the Senate Taxation Committee on March 27.

Energy prices are rising due to US tariffs on Chinese solar panels, a tripling of insurance premiums in MISO, ERCOT, and SPP due to weather events, supply/demand gaps due to permitting delays, higher interest rates, and increased corporate demand for green power. Keep in mind, that power purchase agreements almost always show the subsidized cost of an energy source, so in reality; the cost of these resources is even higher, according to substack.com in a review of a JPMC (JP Morgan Chase) report.

Substack further states, “…these rising price trends are a key reason why we believe the use of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Annual Technology Baseline in energy modeling amounts to utilities and ‘renewable’ special interest groups fudging their numbers to justify massive capital spends on wind, solar, and battery storage technologies.”

Summation about the JPMC report by Substack stated, “… the so-called energy transition is hitting the brick wall of reality. Let’s hope policymakers come to their senses and end the subsidies for wind and solar so we can get back to rational energy policies.”

The JPMC reports that battery storage prices are falling again after a price spike in 2022. According to Energy Storage News, the main drivers of the fall are cell manufacturing overcapacity, economies of scale, low metal and component prices, a slowdown in the EV market, and increased adoption of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are cheaper than nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries. Also, global storage capacity is growing quickly, with the vast majority of batteries being installed in China, the United States, and Germany.

The “energy transition” depends on massive expansions of US high-voltage transmission grid, but capacity additions are falling, and per-mile costs and utility product costs are soaring. It is not necessarily imperative to build a massive build out in interregional transmission infrastructure given the existence of other sources of electricity, like new natural gas plants, which would require far less new transmission and deliver more reliable, affordable electricity, states Substack.

The JPMC (JP Morgan Chase) report acknowledged just how ineffective wind and solar are at reducing US dependency on dispatchable generators. For every megawatt of wind or solar installed in various regions, it only offsets 10 to 20 percent of gas capacity. Installing 10 MW of wind or solar in MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator) would only offset the need for natural gas capacity by 2 MW. In the Southeast, adding 10 MW of wind or solar would only offset the need for 1 MW.

Even this can overstate the reliability contribution of wind and solar due to wind droughts in MISO. Furthermore, utilities in the Southeast are often winter peaking systems, and the peak demand for power usually happens at night when the sun isn’t shining, rendering the solar capacity useless for meeting that demand.

MISO continues to see its reserve margin dwindle as its margin for error sits at just four percent. The JPMC report notes MISO’s warnings of “serious challenges to grid reliability due to increased exposure to wind/solar intermittency, having averted a capacity shortfall in 2023 only due to postponement of planned thermal capacity retirements.”

MISO also warned of adverse consequences from prior EPA proposals to require coal plants, some existing gas plants and new gas plants to (a) retire by a certain date, (b) retrofit with carbon capture or (c) co-fire with green hydrogen; MISO has cited cost and technological readiness issues as major constraints.

PJM is also sounding the alarm as it has increased its projected capacity needs by 40 percent in its Long Term Load Forecast, with PJM’s President saying, “We need capacity… a lot of capacity”. PJM’s report concluded that as demand growth and thermal resource retirements accelerate, the region may experience a shortfall in power supply as early as 2026/2027.

The JPMC report notes, “Hyperscalers will probably have to walk back green power commitments and run data centers primarily on natural gas, as they have been.” As of 2024, 43 percent of U.S. data center power consumption was provided by natural gas, 17 percent by coal, 19 percent by nuclear, 9 percent by wind, 6 percent by solar, and 7 percent by hydro.

This makes a lot of sense because we have yet to hear of data centers that are happy to power their operations intermittently. It’s also why data centers are seeking to build hundreds of MWs of diesel generators on-site to limit supply interruptions.

Wind and solar advocates argue we must rapidly “electrify everything” by using electric vehicles and converting our home heating systems from natural gas, propane, or fuel oil to electric heat pumps. The problem? Doing so costs much more than using natural gas to keep warm in winter.

The JPMC report states:

“The high cost of electricity compared to natural gas (particularly in places without a carbon tax) is another impediment to electrification that is not easy to solve since this ratio reflects relative total costs of production and distribution.”

Natural gas remains much more affordable than using electricity for home heating in states throughout the country, and even heating oil and propane are more affordable than electricity on a nationwide basis.

The JPMC report notes: “Europe is the world leader with respect to the pace of decarbonization. However, Europe is paying a steep price for this transition. Its energy prices have risen from 2x to 4x US levels, and its residential electricity prices are now 5x-7x higher than in China and India.

“There have been many articles on European deindustrialization due to rising absolute and relative energy costs. The spike in relative prices is not just a function of the renewable transition; higher energy prices also reflect Europe’s transition from pipeline Russian gas to more expensive imported LNG. It will be interesting to see if an end to the Russia-Ukraine war results in resumed Russian pipeline gas flows to Europe or not.”

As Doomberg noted in their piece, Project Porcupine, Europe’s irrational energy policies will make it difficult to increase its military might. The JPMC report concurs, stating “European defense capabilities are only 10% of US levels. Higher energy prices, intermittent power and deindustrialization are not going to make the task of European rearmament any easier.”

The report also touched on Germany’s coming Energieweimar. Despite Deutschland’s heavy investments in wind and solar, the country has become a net importer of electricity. Long story short, installed power capacity continues to rise but actual generation is falling. The same story is unfolding in the United Kingdom.

Despite heavy subsidies and much hype, the so-called green hydrogen industry is floundering. Quarterly mentions of hydrogen project delays and cancelations are skyrocketing in the news and in company disclosures.

The report included this quote, with the caveat that it somewhat exaggerates the plight of green hydrogen:

“Electrolyzers, which do not exist, are supposed to use surplus electricity, which does not exist, to feed hydrogen into a network that does not exist in order to operate power plants that do not exist. Alternatively, the hydrogen is to be transported via ships and harbors, which do not exist, from supplier countries, which – you guessed it – also do not exist.”

According to the report:

“Hydrogen has an “original sin” problem: early estimates of electrolyer costs were too low. It started with an influential IRENA paper in 2020 estimating electrolyzer costs at $750 per kW. The European Energy Transitions Commission now concedes that costs are far higher, at least when sourced from Western manufacturers; the latest estimates for 2024 range from $2,100 to $3,200 per kW. This revised assessment had led to a 5x increase in Western 2030 electrolyzer cost projections from BNEF and the Hydrogen Council relative to initial projections.”

This quote pretty much sums up the “energy transition.” Boosters of unproven and expensive technologies assure us that their preferred energy sources are already cheaper, or will soon be much cheaper, than the reliable, affordable technologies we already use. Within a few years, the promises fail to materialize, and they move on to some other unicorn technology, and the hype cycle repeats itself.

Some grim realities for the industry:

“Only 12 percent of green hydrogen projects scheduled for completion by 2030 have identified offtake agreements, and only 5 percent of projects scheduled for completion by 2030 have reached the final investment decision stage. It gets worse: of the projects that have offtake agreements, only 11 percent of that amount represents binding contracts. So…just 1 percent of all projected green hydrogen production has a binding offtake agreement.”

A key reason for the problems plaguing green hydrogen is the cost. Even after assuming optimal electrolyzer utilization rates (which won’t materialize in the real world if they are, in fact, powered by wind and solar), the cost is still massive. In Texas, green hydrogen production is around $6.50 per kilogram (kg). In New York, the cost is around $7.50 per kg.

It takes approximately 7.4 kg of hydrogen to produce 1 million British thermal units (MMBtu) of energy, and it takes 10 MMBtus to produce one megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity in a combustion turbine power plant. This means the fuel cost of green hydrogen is approximately $481/MWh in Texas and $555/MWh in New York. At that price, it’s no wonder the industry is hitting hard times.

Confidence among American consumers fell sharply in February, hitting a 29-month low, while long-run inflation expectations recorded their biggest monthly jump in 32 years, according to the latest University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey.

U.S. households are bracing for some uncertainty—possibly turbulence—as tariffs and other policies take effect, and as government spending shifts to the private sector, comments Epoch Times.

The University of Michigan’s survey showed sentiment plunging 11 percent last month to a preliminary reading of 57.9, down from 64.7 in January and the lowest level since November 2022. The index has now dropped 22 percent since December, when post-election enthusiasm over President Donald Trump’s pro-business policies sent confidence soaring.

Inflation expectations are also rising. Long-run inflation projections climbed from 3.5 percent in January to 3.9 percent in February—the largest month-over-month increase since 1993. Short-term expectations rose as well, with year-ahead inflation forecasts jumping from 4.3 percent to 4.9 percent, marking the highest reading in 29 months and the third consecutive month of significant increases.

Despite these declines, the data suggest consumers are more concerned about the future than the present, as job market conditions and broader economic indicators remain relatively strong.

President Trump has dismissed concerns about a downturn. He told reporters on March 11 that he does not believe a recession is coming “at all” and said that the country is “going to boom.”

Inflation expectations are also rising. Long-run inflation projections climbed from 3.5 percent in January to 3.9 percent in February—the largest month-over-month increase since 1993. Short-term expectations rose as well, with year-ahead inflation forecasts jumping from 4.3 percent to 4.9 percent, marking the highest reading in 29 months and the third consecutive month of significant increases.

Despite these declines, the data suggest consumers are more concerned about the future than the present, as job market conditions and broader economic indicators remain relatively strong.

Trump has dismissed concerns about a downturn. He told reporters on March 11 that he does not believe a recession is coming “at all” and said that the country is “going to boom.”

Some analysts believe consumer anxiety may be overstated. Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, downplayed the significance of the survey’s steep decline.

“Extreme readings are more noise than signal,” Cox stated. However, he noted that the prospect of fiscal tightening could be unsettling: “I’m pretty sure people won’t like austerity—and these readings may very well reflect what people see coming. Free money has a price, and it’s no fun when it ends.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has called Trump’s economic approach “the most important thing America has ever had.” He suggested that even if a brief recession occurs, it will be “worth it.”

“The only reason there could possibly be a recession is because of the Biden nonsense that we had to live with,” Lutnick told CBS, echoing Trump’s claim that Biden-era spending drove inflation and created an unsustainable economic sugar high. Lutnick said Trump’s policies will be revenue-generating: “They produce growth. They produce factories being built here.”

The University of Michigan’s consumer confidence came ahead of the Federal Reserve’s decision to hold interest rates steady in the 4.25–4.50 percent range.

The Fed raised rates by 5.25 percentage points in 2022 and 2023 to combat inflation, which surged to a multi-decade high of 9 percent during Biden’s tenure.

Meanwhile, in contrast to the University of Michigan data, the latest Freedom Economy Index (FEI) survey reveals a dramatic turnaround in sentiment among America’s small businesses.

The March 2025 survey, which polled a nationwide sample of 50,000 small business owners, shows a seismic shift—with 80 percent now reporting increased economic optimism since November, and 68 percent expecting economic growth in 2025. This marks a sharp reversal from October 2024, when 57 percent were predicting a recession.

Commercial

Chase Moore, 50 Moore Ln, Com Footing/Foundation, $450,000

Winchell Real Estate Holdings|Scott Roby Remodel, 1807 Grand Ave, Com Remodel, $50,000

American Tower |Betacom Tower Modifications, 2111 4th Ave N, Com Remodel, $20,000

777 Properties LLC|B & W Builders Inc, 1310 15th St W, Com Remodel $18,000

Dibra Investment Holdings LLC|Wegner Homes, 4120 King Ave W, Com Fence/Roof/Siding, $2,558

Residential

Wilmouth Robert Joseph|Boyce Built LLC, 40 Heatherwood Ln, Res Remodel Single, $450,000

Billings South Shiloh LLC|ABCO Billings LLC, 1741 Packers Ln, Res New Two Family, $350,000

Billings South Shiloh LLC|ABCO Billings LLC, 4122 Dolphins Ln, Res New Two Family, $350,000

Billings South Shiloh LLC|ABCO Billings LLC, 4116 Dolphins Ln, Res New Two Family, $350,000

Billings South Shiloh LLC|ABCO Billings LLC, 4107 Vikings Trl, Res New Two Family, $350,000

Billings South Shiloh LLC|ABCO Billings LLC, 1730 Packers Ln, Res New Two Family, $350,000

Billings South Shiloh LLC|ABCO Billings LLC, 1736 Packers Ln, Res New Two Family, $350,000

Billings South Shiloh LLC|ABCO Billings LLC, 4113 Vikings Trl, Res New Two Family, $350,000

Billings South Shiloh LLC|ABCO Billings LLC, 4101 Vikings Trl, Res New Two Family, $350,000

Houston Randy & Rhonda|Chamberlain Construction, 850 Agate Ave, Res New Single Family, $258,000

WH Copper Ridge 54 LLC|WH Copper Ridge 54 LLC, 7023 Copper Bend Blvd, Res New Single Family, $213,507

WH Copper Ridge 54 LLC|WH Copper Ridge 54 LLC, 7005 Copper Bend Blvd, Res New Single Family, $213,507

The Montana Aeronautics Board has allocated more than $3.2 million in funding for fiscal year (FY) 2026. This funding is designated for a range of airport infrastructure enhancement initiatives.

A portion of the annual grants and loans is intended to match 95/5 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding for substantial airport construction projects. Requests totaling approximately $5.7 million were submitted by 49 public-use airports throughout the state. Ultimately, the Board awarded funding for 123 out of 140 submitted project proposals from 44 public airports in Montana, encompassing both federally supported and non-federally supported projects.

By Sarah Roderick-Fitch, The Center Square

A coalition of state attorneys general is filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, urging the court to lift a nationwide restraining order that is “preventing” the “immediate deportation” of “Tren de Aragua gang members.”

Leading the effort are Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares and South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who joined 24 other states, including Montana, after a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order temporarily halting the deportations of members of the Venezuelan gang. The order came as the aircraft carrying the gang members was airborne.

The deportations followed President Donald Trump’s announcement that he was invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This prompted Chief Judge James Boasberg to immediately issue a temporary restraining order blocking the removal of “all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject” to the president’s order.

Boasberg ordered the planes en route to Central America to be turned around. The Trump administration immediately appealed Boasberg’s order to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The planes carrying the migrants arrived in El Salvador, with the Trump administration claiming they complied with the court order but that the aircraft was out of U.S. airspace by the time Boasberg issued his order.

In January, the president designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization, along with seven other cartels from Latin America.

In the latest brief, the coalition of attorneys general argues that allowing the TRO to stand “undermines public safety and national security, placing American lives at risk.”

The group defended the president’s executive order, saying it is “grounded in clear constitutional and statutory authority to remove TdA members.” They added that the district court “overstepped its bounds by issuing a restraining order without fully considering the Executive Branch’s compelling interest in national security.”

Miyares underscored the duties of the government in protecting its citizens, adding that the president’s actions are constitutionally protected.

“The core duty of government is to protect its citizens. The President, acting within his constitutional and statutory authority, did just that by ordering the removal of TdA gang members who have no legal right to be in this country and pose a direct threat to Americans’ safety. TdA is a violent transnational criminal organization responsible for heinous crimes across the United States. The law is clear, and so is our position,” said Miyares.

The brief comes on the heels of Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introducing articles of impeachment against Boasberg, who was appointed to the bench by former president Barack Obama.

Earlier in the day, the president called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” in a Truth Social post, adding that the judge “should be impeached.”

The post led U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue rare comments criticizing the president, saying the court system should be left to resolve legal disputes.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said Tuesday in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Other states that joined the coalition: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

Marking the 250th anniversary of Patrick Henry’s famous speech.

By Lawrence W. Reed, Foundation for Economic Freedom

In St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia, delegates from around the colony gathered to discuss matters that would rile Britain’s distant King and set Virginia on a path to rebellion. It was March 23, 1775.

One man, a homeschooled and self-taught lawyer who became a prominent planter and a member of the colony’s House of Burgesses, rose to speak. His remarks were described by a witness as “one of the boldest, vehement, and animated pieces of eloquence that had ever been delivered.” That man was Patrick Henry.

Few speeches in history resonated more powerfully than did Henry’s on that momentous occasion. Is there any American in the 250 years since who doesn’t know its most famous line, “Give me liberty or give me death!”?

Tensions between the 13 American colonies and the mother country had risen since King George III ascended to the throne in 1760. Decades of “salutary neglect,” during which the colonies governed themselves with little outside interference, gave way to a meddlesome monarch and a pushy Parliament. At the same time, Enlightenment ideas of liberty were gaining ground from New England to the Deep South. London’s attempts to impose taxation without representation and otherwise erode what the colonists saw as the traditional rights of Englishmen led some by 1775 to think the unthinkable: independence.

Thirty-nine-year-old Patrick Henry had already stuck his neck out by asking the convention to create a Virginia militia to prepare for a war he believed was inevitable. Those who still held out for peace and reconciliation were shocked. They knew that forming an army without London’s consent was nothing short of treason. But Henry began his oration with a ringing defense of his position. To remain quiet and do nothing, he declared, would itself be treason “and an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”

What has come down to us since that day is not a verbatim transcript of Henry’s remarks but rather a reconstruction based on eyewitness accounts. The version generally accepted as probably the closest to the original was prepared by William Wirt and published in 1817. What is beyond all doubt, however, is this: Henry’s speech was a barnburner that left the assembled audience in stunned silence for several minutes.

Henry noted that previous attempts at resolving issues with London were often met with sweet words followed by harsh action. He urged his fellow Virginians not to “be betrayed with a kiss” again. Take notice instead, he said, of “those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land”:

These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? … Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

The storm was coming, warned Henry. Indeed, the “shot heard ’round the world” would be fired at Lexington the following month. The time for debate and petitions was past. In no uncertain terms, this fiery patriot advised his friends what must be done:

If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!

Who would come to America’s aid? How could 13 colonies, even if united, take on the world’s preeminent military power all by themselves? The delegates were wondering about that very uncertainty, but Henry gave them an answer. “There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us,” he pronounced. Indeed, many Americans would come to regard their two greatest allies in the war with Britain to be in this order: God and the French. “The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone,” Henry reminded his listeners. “It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”

In about 1,200 words, Patrick Henry put everything on the line. No equivocation, no hesitations, no suggested compromises. He was as decisive as an orator can be. His final sentences ring with the clarity of a church bell to this day:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were present and stirred by Henry’s words. So was Edward Carrington, who later served with distinction as a lieutenant colonel in Washington’s Continental Army. Carrington listened to Henry’s speech from outside one of the church’s windows. He was so moved by it that he turned to friends and said, “Boys, bury me here, in this very spot!” When he died 34 years later, he was indeed buried under that window.

The convention rallied to Henry’s cause and moved to place Virginia “in a posture of defense.” Washington, Jefferson, and a handful of others were appointed to prepare a plan to create an army. Lord Dunmore, the British-appointed Governor of Virginia, would soon abandon the colony and flee on a ship. Patrick Henry became the first Governor of the new state of Virginia in the same month the Declaration of Independence was signed, July 1776.

In the long and storied history of the struggle for liberty, “the speech” of March 23, 1775, in that Richmond church surely ranks as one of the most memorable orations of all time.

Early this week, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. High Country in partnership with Dick Anderson Construction held a gathering at which the two companies donated $100,000 to ten local non-profit community organizations, with $10,000 checks presented to each.  Dick Anderson Construction built the new $21 million bottling plant for Coca Cola High Country which opened in June 2024.

The event was held at the new plant, where Tura Synhorst, Executive Vice President of High Country, welcomed representatives of the community organizations and thanked them for their support of the community. She said that her company is dedicated “to enriching and uplifting the communities we serve, with a special focus on youth programs and community activities.”

Organizations receiving the donations were:

—The Education Foundation of Billings Public Schools

—Northern Lights Family Justice Center

—Rimrock Foundation

—Billings Trail Net

—Laurel Little League

— Yellowstone Soccer Association

—BAHL Youth Scholarship Fund of Hockey League

—Billings YMCA

—Hoodies for Heroes

—All Kids Bike Foundation

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. High Country donated $75,000, and Dick Anderson Construction donated $25,000.

Having been founded in 1956, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. High Country, a four-generation family enterprise, is celebrating nearly 70 years in business.

In addition, 2025 marks Dick Anderson Construction’s 50th year in business. 

Headquartered in Rapid City, South Dakota, Coca-Cola Bottling Company High Country serves over 2.4 million consumers regionally across portions of Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Headquartered in Rapid City, South Dakota, the company manufactures, sells and distributes hundreds of different varieties of sparkling soft drinks and a vast array of still beverages including sports drinks, bottled waters, juices and juice drinks, teas, energy drinks and coffee.

Founded in Helena, Montana in 1975, Dick Anderson Construction, Inc. (DAC) has grown from a small, private client company to a regional general construction manager and contracting industry leader with over four hundred employees. Its structured growth and success are the direct result of diversified employees, quality work, and valued relationships with clients and project team members. As the construction market has expanded and diversified over the past 50 years, DAC has remained at the forefront of innovative project delivery. DAC remains a Montana-based firm, working from eight offices across Montana and Wyoming, with a market-leading portfolio of commercial construction, GC/CM, and Design-Build projects. For the past seven years, Engineering News-Record has recognized DAC as one of the Top 400 Contractors in the nation.

By Roger Koopman

At an early age, we taught our kids to learn from others and to think for themselves.  I still remember telling one child, “Truth doesn’t fly in flocks.  You need to seek and find it on your own.  And never be afraid to test and re-examine what you believe is true.  Belief has no value if you close your mind to the ideas and arguments of others.  Living in truth involves not only faith, but also the courage to think for yourself.”

Unthinking animals either herd up for security, or run in packs to pull other creatures down.  Politicians do both.  In the worst example I have seen in 48 years in Montana, the cowardly pack mentality has been on full display in the sixty-nineth session of the Montana State Legislature. 

Most of us are aware by now of the hostile takeover of the Montana State Senate by a coalition of every Democrat plus a wolf pack of liberal Republicans, who locked claws on vote after vote to deliver a functional majority for the Democratic Party.  At one point, twenty separate pro-Democrat floor votes were recorded, all by 27-23 margins – an impressive show of Pack Power over their own Republican leadership.  The nine GOP deserters are senators Vance, Gillespie, Kassmier, Lammers, Loge, McKamey, Tempel, Hunter and Ellsworth.

First, the Pack held the Senate hostage for many days, eventually forcing leadership to change its own rules so that liberal Republicans could be inserted onto key committees to shift committee control. 

Then came the Jason Ellsworth affair.  Sen. Ellsworth was caught arranging a sweetheart contract for a buddy of his by quietly diverting, at the last moment, over $170,000  from the unspent budget of the Judicial Reform Interim Committee, over the objections of its members. The project made no sense and would be performed from the friend’s home.  When discovered, auditors were shocked, and the Senate Ethics Committee began an investigation, as was its constitutional duty.  But the nine-member GOP wolf pack again locked arms with the Democrats and stopped the investigation in its tracks – thus assuring that the liberal Ellsworth would remain in the Senate for the entire session, doing the Democrats’ bidding.

Other reports of Ellsworth throwing his political weight around started coming out.  Clearly, he should have resigned, but the “the Pack” continued to give him protective cover, and he remains there still – larger than life – seemingly incapable of shame or contrition. 

Meanwhile, the pack of nine went about doing exactly what groups like Montana Conservative Alliance have been warning about for many years — voting with the Democrat block and against limited government conservatives whenever key legislation comes up.  I call them Mutant Elephants: elephant bodies, donkey heads.   There they were for example, joining with the Democrats to pass massive Medicaid expansion welfare, and to defeat a bill providing work requirements.  (More than 6 out of 10 current recipients are able to work, but don’t.)

The state GOP publicly rebuked the nine Republican senators, but they missed the point.  This undermining of the conservative Republican cause has been going on for over 50 years, with this just being the most obvious, leadership-smashing example.  It’s really nothing new, but the media attention to the orchestrated aspect of this treachery is actually a good thing.  Maybe GOP voters will finally take notice. 

In a larger sense, what we have in our state legislature is a great many legislators who don’t read the bills, don’t read the fiscal notes, and don’t show any natural curiosity for ideas or constitutional principles.  They follow their leaders and their lobbyists and rarely do the work of a legislator or think for themselves.  The Democrats are the most obvious example – almost never having a party member show independence of thought.  It is, after all, easy to be a loyal Democrat.  All you need to do is want to grow government in every direction, deny the biology of gender, and make it easier to kill human babies.

But Republicans are supposed to be different.  Some are – and I acknowledge those men and women as great legislators.  Others are not.  They run with the pack, and fail to do the deliberative, investigative work of independent-thinking legislators.  They’ve put their own pride and positions above their constituents, and deserve to be sent packing.

Roger Koopman is president of Montana Conservative Alliance. He served four years in the Montana House of Representatives and eight years as a Montana Public Service commissioner. He operated a Bozeman small business for 37 years.

Roger Pielke Jr., from substack.com

An important new paper published this week in Nature Communications looks at the historical record of fire in North America — A fire deficit persists across diverse North American forests despite recent increases in area burned. Reseachers find that large fires of recent decades in North America are not unprecedented:

Our study of 1851 tree-ring fire-scar sites and contemporary fire perimeters across the United States and Canada reveals a substantial, persistent fire deficit from 1984–2022 in many forest and woodland ecosystems, despite recent increases in burning. Contemporary fire occurrence is still far below historical (1600–1880) levels at NAFSN [North American tree-ring Fire-Scar Network] sites despite multiple large and ‘record-breaking’ recent fire years, such as 2020 in the western United States. Individual years with particularly widespread fire during the 1984–2022 period were not unprecedented in comparison with the active fire regimes of the historical period across most of the study region. Historically, fires in particularly active fire years were spatially more widespread and ubiquitous compared to fires burning during active contemporary years.

The authors start by asking an important question (emphasis added):

[A]verage annual area burned since the late 19th and early- to mid-20th centuries is generally less than that experienced under historical fire regimes across many North American forests, resulting in a widespread 20th century ‘fire deficit’ relative to earlier time periods. However, area burned by wildfire has increased across much of North America over the last few decades. Over this time period (mid-1980s—present), several regions have experienced individual years with exceptionally high area burned, leading to questions about whether recent fire years are unprecedented. As area burned has increased rapidly since the mid-1980s in parts of North America, is it possible that the fire deficit has been reduced or eliminated?

To answer this question they look at a novel dataset on tree-ring scars caused by fire.

It is not often that I am reading a scientific paper and encounter results that make me say — “Wow!”. This is one of those cases:

The year 2020 had the highest percent of sites recording fire in the contemporary time period, with 6% of NAFSN sites burned. This percentage is far below the 29% burned in the most widespread historical fire year (1748) and equal to the average of 6% that burned per year across NAFSN sites during the historical period.

Overall, fires occurred at a rate of only 23% of that expected based on historical fires — indicating a huge accumulated deficit.