As far as medicare for all is concerned:
The avg person pays into medicare about $150 K while working. The average paid out after 65 is around 300,000 dollars. Multiply this by the current number of medicare recipients and then ask your self again, who is going to pay that. It is something like 80 Trillion dollars of unfunded cost, if I remember correctly. The government collects about 3.6 Trillion a year and still creates 1 Trillion in debt. If the tax rate was doubled and the 50% of population that pays no federal income tax was put into collections at 10%, the current debt could be paid off in about 7 years. Problem then, is many small businesses that employ over half of the income tax paying people, would no longer be able to stay in business. Thus the beginning of economic failure. The rule of self sufficient is truly the only way out and it will take 40 years of great economy under Trump type policies to make that happen. When Muenchen says medicaid has to decline in dollars to have a thriving economy, he is really saying that if we have to continue to pay for Obamacare, we will never have real GDP growth again. And most likely a devastating living situation for any person that has not prepared themselves to live like a pioneer.
The health care plan that appears to have failed because of 48 democrats and 4 republicans , would have reduced the medicaid demand over about 8 years by about 3.3 trillion. A good start to self sufficiency.

Or, as President Trump just broadcast, the 60 v**e rule is absurd. It means that 8 democrats control the Senate. He says go to the same as House- 51 v**es to pass any legislation. McConnell can do this with 50 v**es from Republicans and one from VP. Let us see what happens.

SCOTUS ruled it is a tax, which is in the constitution.
I agree with you that it should never have been ruled constitutional. It was presented under the amendment "for the good of all". That was unconstitutional, but SCOTUS then said it is legal as a tax. That threw it back to the v**ers to v**e it out thru representation. So far that is not working. Senate either needs 60 v**es or change the rules to 51 to manage all day to day business.
But, that also explains the reason for difficulty to repeal all of the law. The Senate rules would require a full 60 v**es to repeal the funding and the rules of the law. Reconciliation, with 51 v**es, would allow the funding to be repealed. That is why the Senate bill has the long term fix with medicaid as part of the bill that appears to have failed.
Thus, it appears we will be stuck with this law and required to pay to avoid tax penalties and jail.

Just go to this link. This is for the required individual mandate. However the ACA (Obamacare) is explained.
https://obamacare.net/obamacare-individual-mandate/

The problem with repeal, is with the 51 v**es they can only repeal the funding. The Obamacare rules would require a full 60 v**es. The other thing is there are 8 million people that chose to pay the fine instead of buying the insurance. News never reports that and the CBO does not either when they say how many people would lose insurance.

Surgery that solves problems, less death due to hardship, less infant death would all be reasons for longer life. And it really is home remedies used as prevention, that do the job.

Some links, but really just Google. There is also a confirmed reports with 100's of successfully treated prostate patients that were treated with red grades, curcumin and apples.
http://www.gardeningchannel.com/honey-infused-garlic/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdL-KW50s_w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkigbgNqQoo

Some facts on shootings. When total picture analyzed, one thing is very clear about murders by gun. Top murder cities have been run by democrats for a long time.
Guys, below in email is a nice review of gun crime. I thought appropriate to send a long in light of OhB still saying crazy people or lunatics will never k**l because all the guns are taken from every law abiding citizen. Also, 95% of mass murderers were mentally ill and typically stole their weapons from a relative. Maybe, just one law to punish the gun owner if a relative uses his or her weapon to commit mass murder.

Personal experience for me from yesterday. I had to use my shotgun to defend myself and my dogs. I heard them barking and went out to see what for. They had found a rabid ground hog that had climbed one of my trees. I got close enough to know it was not well with foam coming from its mouth. I retrieved my shotgun and put it out of its misery. No weapons? …. what would I have done?
Retreated to the house with my dogs and cowered until it died or went on to maybe infect other animals or people. The old saying is "A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

OhB says that there are no mass murders in states with strictest gun laws tonight on his address to USA at 5:30 PM Central.
Macro or Micro analysis. His was macro and way off target. To identify and solve the problem, v**e republican.
The file below is updated through 2013. You make the judgement about gun control based on facts and not the voodoo science of OhB.

Not in this article but the world rankings , USA would be ranked about 4th from bottom of all industrialized countries, if Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore, Milwaukie and New Orleans were not included in the stats. In common to all high murder rates are long term democratic cities with the strictest gun control laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


Not one Republican run city on this list. True reduction of the gun death rate is related directly to what politics are in charge and has been for a very long time. To solve the problem---v**e Republican. Below chart from this link. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/la-chicago-rank-1-and-2-gun-murders-no-has-highest-rate

Overall number of gun murders:
1. Los Angeles.......................1,141
2. Chicago..............................1,139
3. New York.............................1,101
4. Philadelphia...........................729
5. Houston..................................701
6. Detroit.....................................686
7. Miami.......................................594
8. Dallas......................................469
9. Washington.............................440
10. San Francisco......................439

Gun murders per 100,000 people:
1. New Orleans...........................19.0
2. Memphis...................................9.4
3. Detroit.......................................8.6
4. Birmingham..............................8.4
5. St. Louis...................................8.1
6. Baltimore..................................7.7
7. Jacksonville..............................7.4
8. Kansas City..............................6.8
9. Philadelphia..............................6.2

3 sections to this post-- 1) statistics from one gun-free city who averages close to 1000 murders a year 2)Article on one group who always has been supporting Obama 3) Guns and founding fathers--- LB
If 2nd Amendment attacks succeed, look what is most likely for the rest of the country? Where is the reporting guys?

Newtown happens and the 2nd amendment should be repealed or altered. Newtown children 19 of 20 white. Chicago children mostly black. Media silent about Chicago violence. WHY?????

Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year with strongest gun laws in country – media silent


By Clash Daily / 19 December 2012 /
The cesspool known as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in l*****t utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been k**led by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year. So why isn’t this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicago’s tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and k**led were minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light?

THE LIST OF MURDERED SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN 2012
18 YEARS OLD- 15
17 YEARS OLD- 16
16 YEARS OLD- 16
15 YEARS OLD- 6
14 YEARS OLD- 4
13 YEARS OLD- 2
12 YEARS OLD- 1
7 YEARS OLD- 1
6 YEARS OLD- 1
446 School Age Children Shot in Chicago so Far Last Year
THE LIST OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN SHOT IN 2012
18 year old- 110
17 year old- 99
16 year old- 89
15 year old- 62
14 year old- 39
13 year old- 21
12 year old- 10
11 year old- 2
10 year old- 3
9 year old- 1
7 year old- 3
6 year old- 2
5 year old- 1
4 year old- 1
3 year old- 1
1 year old- 2
So why isn’t this news worthy?
The leadership in Illinois - all Democrats.
President: Barack Hussein Obama
Senator: Dick Durbin
House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.
Governor: Pat Quinn
House leader: Mike Madigan
Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)
Mayor: Rahm Emanuel

Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.
State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% - highest in country.
A culture of corruption that would make a Louisiana politician blush with envy.

Can't blame Republicans -- there aren't any!


http://www.infowars.com/c*******ts-cheer-on-obamas-gun-grab/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=http://www.infowars.com/c*******ts-cheer-on-obamas-gun-grab/
C*******ts Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab
________________________________________
William F. Jasper
New American
Jan 25, 2013
It should come as no surprise that the C*******t Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of c*******t regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.
In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the C*******t Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”
The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican p**********l candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”
“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”
The C*******t Party’s “journalist” continued:
As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the h**e-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.
However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the t***sition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”
Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other c*******t countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.
As The New American reported recently, C*******t China’s ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:
The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.
More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:
Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.
“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make pr********n for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”
C*******t China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the C*******t Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power k**ls and absolute power k**ls absolutely. In the case of C*******t China, the mass murder by the c*******t government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!
And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the C*******t Party) are allowed to possess weapons.
Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s “Voice of Russia” program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.
Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.
The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with c*******t tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.
“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other c*******t publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.
We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other c*******t propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.
See more important reports at TheNewAmerican.com.
This article was posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 at 5:48 am

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm†
________________________________________
The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.
by David Mamet | January 29, 2013 12:00 AM EST
† A city in eastern Poland.
Karl Marx summed up C*******m as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, s***ery, and death.
‘In announcing his gun control proposals, President Obama said that he was not restricting Second Amendment rights, but allowing other constitutional rights to flourish.’
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.
President Obama, in his ree******n campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”
But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “s***ery.”
The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.
The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”
Who threatens American society most: law-abiding citizens or criminals? (Matt Rourke/AP)
This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unf**gging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.
The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the e*****rates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.
Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy v**es, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused e*****rate, but to protect us from such a government.
Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.
Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs r**t.
Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition

Many know the northwest is covered with forest fires. What you probably don't know is what the EPA is doing in controlling resources. I have friends living where the firefighters "were" using as a staging area. The EPA made them move the staging area because they were afraid the firefighters would t***smit "ragweed". Picture this-- homes and property have been evacuated, the trees on many acres are burning out of control, livestock and wildlife have been burned to death. The sky is rarely seen through the smoke and outdoor activities are minimal. Never fear--the EPA will protect future generations from the possibility of ragweed!! Another friend living close to the already evacuated area was tagged as being on the list for next evacuations if necessary--but he will be given a few hours notice to get out. I joked that we could gather the county together and do a bucket brigade from the river to the firefighters but they would probably have a mandatory check for each bucket of water because it "might" be carrying something dangerous from the water! You will understand why I said that after reading this article: May God protect us from the EPA!!!

EPA and Green Agenda
Sen Jennifer Fielder, R – Thompson Falls Aug 24, 2015
What's wrong with this picture? The federal government admits they don’t have the resources to fight the fires. But when Montana mobilized our state firefighting aircraft, the feds told Montana firefighters to stand down. It’s been happening all over the west. People are being evacuated, homes burning, thousands of wild animals and livestock destroyed. Billions of dollars in valuable timber and other property is going up in smoke. Lakes, streams, and fisheries decimated. And state owned firefighting aircraft are barred from putting out fires on federally controlled lands because of the incessant federal bureaucracy that is crippling America.
Last Friday Governor Steve Bullock wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking them to lift the “nonsensical restrictions”. The Governor declared a state of emergency and authorized Montana National Guard troops and the state’s wildland firefighting aircraft to assist in putting out the wildfires burning on federally controlled lands in Montana. "I am doing my part to mobilize every available firefighting resource at my disposal, and make them available to all fire protection agencies," Bullock wrote in the letter. "I encourage you to do your part by directing leadership within your respective agencies to rescind this unnecessary and artificial restriction on Montana aircraft as soon as possible."
Newsmax reported late Friday: Bullock spokesman Mike Wessler said U.S. fire managers barred the use of UH-1H helicopters over federal land because they have objected to modifications to the state's fleet that made them faster and able to carry more water. Bullock said in the letter that Montana pilots who have flown UH-1H helicopters on hundreds of wildland fire missions have been told to stand down as blazes broke out "in full view of our aviation staff, who watched them grow as federal firefighters waited for other 'approved' aircraft to be dispatched from distant locations.
The modifications made on the fleet did not impact its flight worthiness and it has been used numerous times to battle blazes on state and private lands, with no accidents, Wessler told Reuters on Friday. Bullock's letter comes as U.S. fire managers have said the nation's firefighting resources, including crews and aircraft, are stretched thin amid a season that has brought destructive and even deadly fires to the U.S. West.
CBS News also released similar accounts: The State of Montana has five specially-modified military surplus Bell helicopters that it uses to fight fires. [Montana DNRC Director] Tubbs says the Forest Service doesn’t acknowledge the special modifications the state has made that make Montana’s choppers safer and more effective than similar helicopters that the federal agency restricts.
"They’re very effective," Tubbs says. "The first firefighter that can get to a scene is one of our Bell 205s, most times. They carry a crew of 7 firefighters, so there’s a manager, 6 firefighters and a pilot. They deploy the firefighters on the ground, the firefighters hook the bucket up, the bucket goes up, they find a water source, and they start fighting that fire both on the ground and with water [dropped from above]. They’re one of the reasons that [the state of Montana is] so effective at stopping fires at less than 10 acres, and that saves money and cuts risk."
CBS contacted the U.S. Forest Service Region headquarters in Missoula and said, “they responded with a statement, but said they’re not taking questions on the issue at this time. Public Affairs Staffer Elizabeth Sloan declined to comment on the accuracy of Governor Bullock’s letter, but, as part of a prepared statement, said:
"The Forest Service and the State of Montana have different standards and regulations to which each must adhere."
This is the second year that Montana has been barred from deploying state helicopters to put out fires on public lands controlled by the United States Forest Service. "This makes no sense, and puts the safety and property of Montanans at risk," Bullock said.
On this the governor and I agree. Perhaps now we can convince him to join with other states in preparing for management of federally controlled public lands to be turned over to the states. I have no doubt Montanans can and will do better than WADC.
Sen Fielder represents Senate Distict 7 which includes all f Sanders County and Mineral County, and a soutwest portion of Flathead County and western-most Missoula County.