Montana friends something wicked is afoot. And this is it-“The Nasty 9” (Rinos) and the “Dems” are lying to you. They want to pass House Bill 924 which is a terrible plan. (Be sure to read the information below very carefully and then read the image at the bottom). This article was submitted by the Montana Freedom Caucus.

CALL TO ACTION: Call your Montana legislators, we have got to stop this bill!

If there’s one thing we’ve learned after decades of watching the financial system from the inside out, it’s this: when someone builds a complicated mechanism and tells you it’s for your protection, you’d better ask what they’re protecting themselves from. HB 924 is one of those mechanisms. It wraps itself in the language of fiscal prudence — stabilization, reserves, risk — but when you open the box, it’s not stability you find. It’s a cleverly designed mechanism to move public money off-budget, away from oversight, and into long-term commitments that avoid public scrutiny.

Let’s look at the trick at the heart of this bill: the definition of volatility. HB 924 doesn’t define volatility the way any economist or policy analyst would — as unpredictable deviation from trend, measured against expected economic performance. Instead, it defines volatility as anything above a static, decade-old floor. That’s not a risk signal. That’s a political convenience. It ensures that revenue — even predictable, recurring revenue — can be classified as “volatile,” swept into a trust, and spent according to a formula that’s insulated from the budget process.

This isn’t about smoothing the budget cycle. This is about redirecting general fund dollars away from democratic control. It’s appropriation without appropriation. And it’s done in a way that looks technocratic enough to pass the smell test — but not if you actually read the bill.

Here’s the problem: when you label normal growth as volatility, you don’t just get the math wrong. You get the policy wrong. You starve the operating budget of revenue. You force legislators to fight over shrinking margins while the trust fund grows unchecked. You create future obligations without future votes. And worst of all, you tell the public that you’re saving for a rainy day — when really, you’re just locking away the umbrella.

We’ve seen this pattern before. In banking. In higher education finance. In public-private partnerships. It’s always the same formula: take a budget challenge, reframe it as a risk, build a structure around it, and then use that structure to change the rules of governance. HB 924 is not unique in that regard. But it is dangerous — because it makes something deeply political look like administrative housekeeping.

Montana doesn’t need volatility theater. It needs honest budgeting. It needs strong reserves — built the right way, from real surpluses, during real booms, using real metrics. Not from static floors and political accounting.

If you want a trust fund, build a trust fund. But don’t get there by rigging the definition of volatility. Because when you do, you’re not stabilizing the budget. You’re destabilizing democracy.