It appears that when you ask Matt “baby” Blunt about global warming he’ll reply, “We don’t need no stinkin’ science.” He stomps his foot whilst sticking his head in the sand. He’s sort of of like dubya, only slower and meaner…

Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt has dismissed major parts of the Midwestern Governors Association’s energy pact that would establish greenhouse gas reduction goals and require greater reliance on renewable electricity sources.

Blunt was the only governor who did not sign any part of the pact at the 12-state association’s energy summit last month. He had also refused to take part in the months-long development of the pact….

tiny URL

…He had also refused to take part in the months-long development of the pact…. Let’s see, what was “baby” Blunt paying attention to in October and November? Oh, yeah, I remember now.

November 16, 2007

Governors Sign Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform and Greenhouse Gas Accord

Washington, D.C. – Ten Midwestern leaders – Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Governor Chester J. Culver of Iowa, Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, Governor M. Michael Rounds of South Dakota, and Premier Gary Doer of Manitoba – today signed the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.

Indiana, Ohio, and South Dakota are signing the agreement as observers to participate in the formation of the regional cap-and-trade system.

The historic agreement, signed at the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA) Energy Security and Climate Change Summit held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, will serve as a regional strategy to achieve energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

The Accord will:

   *  Establish greenhouse gas reduction targets and timeframes consistent with MGA member states’ targets;

   *  Develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism to help achieve those reduction targets;

   *  Establish a system to enable tracking, management, and crediting for entities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and

   *  Develop and implement additional steps as needed to achieve the reduction targets, such as a low-carbon fuel standards and regional incentives and funding mechanisms.

“This is a momentous day in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” said Governor Doyle, chair of the MGA.  “Leaders from across the Midwest are charting a new energy direction for our citizens, our nation, and our world, creating high-paying jobs for our citizens and building a cleaner and safer world for generations to come.  Our strong manufacturing base and rich agricultural industries, along with the wealth of resources in our vast northern forests and our world-leading research universities, position the Midwest to become the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy.”

As part of the summit, the Midwestern states, including Nebraska and North Dakota, also adopted an Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform.  The platform establishes shared goals for the

Midwest region, including specific timelines for the advance of energy efficiency, the promotion of biobased products, the production of renewable electricity, and the development of advance coal and carbon capture and storage.

To support these shared goals, the Midwestern states launched new cooperative regional initiatives to address the following:

   * CO2 management to create a regional transportation and storage infrastructure;

   * A bioproduct procurement program to support the growth of the region’s bioeconomy;

   * Electricity transmission adequacy to support thousands of new megawatts of wind energy;

   * Renewable fuels corridors and coordinated signage to promote renewable fuel usage across the Midwest;

   * Advanced bioenergy permitting to assist states with the latest technologies; and

   * Low-carbon energy transmission infrastructure that will provide a cost-effective way to supply the Midwest with sustainable and environmentally responsible energy.

Midwestern states are leading the nation in the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.  The Midwest boasts world-class renewable energy resources that support rapidly growing wind energy, corn ethanol, and biodiesel industries, and has the potential for robust cellulosic biomass and solar industries.

The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord builds on existing greenhouse gas reduction efforts in each state as well as existing regional efforts.  The new Midwest regional effort will include more states.  Current emission levels in these states will require more aggressive efforts than in other regions.

[emphasis added]

Where’s Matt “baby” Blunt on the list?

Greenhouse Gas Accord [pdf]

Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform [pdf]

…Develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism to help achieve those reduction targets… sounds like an entrepreneurial capitalist’s dream to me…

…Blunt noted that 70 percent of the power produced in Missouri comes from coal-fired plants…

tiny URL

Missouri Coal Fired Plants

According to this document: Proposed New Coal Fired Power Plant Projects [pdf] – Great Plains Energy and Kansas City Power & Light want to build a coal fired plant in Missouri.

And who might be interested in all of this?

Amended October – Committee Quarterly Report – 10/17/07

Missouri Energy Development Assoc. 326 E. Capitol Ave. Jefferson City, MO 65101- 9/24/2007

$1,275.00

Monetary

The Missouri Energy Development Association

Amended July – Committee Quarterly Report – 10/17/07

Michael Chesser  Great Plains Energy 6/29/2007

$5,000.00

Timothy Curry Great Plains Energy 6/29/2007

$2,000.00

William Riggins Great Plains Energy 6/29/2007

$1,000.00

Richard Spring  Great Plains Energy 6/29/2007

$250.00

There are a few people who support Matt “baby” Blunt and his views on energy.

A few weeks ago, I left a post about an employer based state health insurance reform plan being pushed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. In that posting I had included a snippet about California’s efforts for health care reform and made mention of the fact that the California Nurses Association helped pass a single payer bill in the California legislature last year only to have it vetoed by The Arnold. The override failed by a lack of four votes in the Senate and six to eight votes in the Assembly.  The Arnold, of course, submitted a compromise bill putting insurance back into the picture.  The bill is labeled AB1.

According to Dr. Don McCanne of the Physicians for a National Health Program writing in “The Quote of the Day” column:

ABx1 1 is an employer pay or play, combined with an individual mandate. It calls for five tiers of insurance coverage, allowing the wealthy to have the best, and, well, you know (and we thought that two tiers were inhumane). Much of the 210 pages of the bill is dedicated to tortuous, complex administrative machinations designed to keep the private insurers in play, at a cost in greatly diminished health care justice, compared to what we could have had.

McCanne continues:

California currently has 6.6 million uninsured residents; 5.1 million are considered “permanently uninsured.” If this proposal works as designed (a highly unlikely scenario), it would bring medical coverage to about 3.6 million Californians.

And who are these millions of people who would be exempt from having coverage? “12739.501. (a) A person or family who has an income at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level shall be exempt from the requirements established in Section 8899.50 of the Government Code if the person’s or family’s share of the premium for 8899.50 minimum creditable coverage exceeds 5 percent of his or her family’s income.”

Of all of the policy tradeoffs to achieve compromise, this is the sickest. The millions who do not qualify for the medical welfare programs, and don’t have enough income to pay the premium for the “minimum creditable coverage” are excused from being included in our universal health care program.

What’s that?  Excused from the Universal Care Health Program?  What is it about the word  “universal” that they do not understand?

California Senator Shelia Kuehl introduced the Single Payer bill, SB 840 which was  vetoed by The Arnold.. This is what Senator Kuehl has to say about this compromise bill currently marching through the State Houses in California.                                                                                                        

The press characterizes the bill as “providing” or “extending” coverage to all but a few Californians.

This is a mischaracterization, nothing is “provided”.   Instead, all Californians would be required to buy insurance with no caps on premiums, no regulation of the cost of insurance or medical expense, no maximum deductibles, and no floor on how little coverage you can buy and satisfy the legal requirement. If you do not buy insurance within 62 days after the requirement kicks in, the Franchise Tax Board is authorized to collect premiums determined by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board by garnishment of wages or mortgage liens.

With respect to employer based health care coverage, Sen. Kuehl has this to say:

Your employer would be required to spend from 1% to 6.5% of payroll (depending on the size of the payroll) to buy insurance policies for employees.  Employees would be required to take the insurance and to pay whatever supplemental premiums, co-pays and out of pocket costs are not paid by the employer.  There are no caps on what the employee would pay, only for the employer.  There is a vague term about “hardship” letting people out of the mandate, but no definition is offered and, as in Massachusetts, if you are excused from the mandatory purchase of insurance, you simply have no insurance!

Feeling a little anxious?  Well read on.

Other troubling provisions include no minimum coverage provision, no choice of physicians or hospitals, and more unsupervised health care workers.  There is presently no funding in the bill, only the promise of an initiative and the hope that the Feds will provide more money for children’s insurance (and we already know about that). The 85% rule that requires insurance companies to spend that much on “care” is already currently on the books and insurance flagrantly includes marketing, IT and some admin overhead as care.  The bill allows this to continue.   More ominously, the bill does not clarify that in the case of failure of the initiative, whether or not Californians are individually mandated to purchase insurance.  

Regarding the Unions, Senator Kuehl has this to say as to whether they like the bill:

Well, some of them (do).  SEIU, who has organized and hopes to organize healthcare workers is positively salivating over the bill, to the extent that their national leader, Andy Stern, is engineering moving out the current state leader, who has questioned the bill, in favor of a new leader who will go along with it.  AFSCME has also come on board with the bill, thinking that public employees will benefit.  (However, with all the hits the bill brings on the state budget, this may be short sighted).  About half of the unions in the California Labor Federation are with it, and half are against it but not taking a firm position.  The California Nurses, the California School Employees and the Teamsters, among others, are strongly in opposition.

So,  sports fans, it sounds like a brave new world is coming with health care reform.  I am not too happy about being in the bleachers on this go-round.  I see a fair number of arguments that the Democratic candidates proposals differ only marginally, and in my opinion, that is true. But stop for a moment and take a cold hard look at the rest of the game plan. With respect to California, The Arnold is a Republican, albeit a somewhat moderate one, and his plan will definitely lean to insurance.  With respect to the candidate’s proposals, I choose to look beyond the proposals and to the candidates themselves for a further viewpoint.  I worry that Hillary is a “big team player” and that Barak is too negotiation oriented.  Edwards seems to be a little different.   Below that sunny exterior lives a disciplined contender who is well able to fight the good fight and win.  The word on the street is that during his days as a trial lawyer, when insurance found out that he was the guy on the case, they had a tendency to settle much more quickly.  Combine that with his populist rhetoric and his refusal of corporate money and he looks even better.  Maybe best of all is the MSM studious snubbing of his campaign.  In my book that speaks volumes.  Since polls show that Edwards is the most likely candidate to beat any of the Republican candidates, it is no wonder they want to bury him. The choice is yours, but this here single payer fan is gettin’ on the Edwards train..  

I don’t know, folks. I am ready to throw every poll out the window. The last poll I saw (don’t ask me where I can’t remember) showed Edwards beating every R when compared to every Dem. (See the CNN Poll)

Will Clinton be Kerry? Will we vote for the one ‘we think may win’ instead of the one who has the best policies? Are we ever gonna do the right thing instead of the most expedient?

Edwards has been consistent in his stands. I just have one of those stones in my tummy when I think of HIllary winning. Deju all over again- and sorry – I DO remember the 90s with Bill. I remember NAFTA, I remember downsizing and outsourcing beginning under Bill. (E.g. Clinton NAFTA Address) I remember the co-opting of the Republican issues – welfare to work (love that frame!), abortion (safe, legal and rare), Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.)

I dont’ want another 4 years of Republican lite. I want an actual- you know- democrat, with ‘D” and values like equality and justice and fairness. I want a dem who understands that no every one was born with a savings account and a college education waiting for them.

The debates haven’t been enlightening – they’ve been predictable, with the reporters asking mostly canned questions – don’t go too deep (there is no time, but there is this thing called ‘print’ – newspapers?) How many more times will we hear a moderator say “Raise your hand if you …?”

The agencies that are supposed to protect us have failed. We are slowly being poisoned from our food, toys, waterways and medicine (for example, look atMissouri watersheds level of concern on atrazine) because those agencies are run by the industries they are supposed to oversee! How will the candidates address that?

I just don’t want to see any more polls. I just want to vote for who I think will be the best president – NOT take side bets on odds they may or maybe beat so and so.  

Survey USA poll released a poll of various presidential match ups in Missouri on December 18, 2007. The sample was of 547 registered voters and had a margin of error of 4.3%. The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

The match ups:  

Clinton – 49%

Giuliani – 43%

Undecided – 8%

Clinton – 49%

Huckabee – 47%

Undecided – 4%

Clinton – 50%

McCain – 46%

Undecided – 4%

Clinton – 51%

Romney – 41%

Undecided – 8%

Obama – 47%

Giuliani – 42%

Undecided – 11%

Obama – 45%

Huckabee – 47%

Undecided – 8%

Obama – 47%

McCain – 44%

Undecided – 9%

Obama – 49%

Romney – 39%

Undecided – 12%

Missouri is in play. It’ll be interesting to see if the polling match ups (and numbers) change after the Iowa caucuses.

A 500 sample poll of likely voters in Missouri done for Fox Television stations on December 12, 2007 by Rasmussen shows that Jay Nixon leads Matt “baby” Blunt 47% to 42%. The poll has a margin of error of 4.5%.

In the same poll dubya doesn’t fare so well:

1. How do you rate the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

17% Excellent

16% Good

18% Fair

48% Poor

1% Not Sure

Those true believers are going to hang on to the end, eh?

The poll also shows concerns for the state of the economy. Not good.

As always, polling results are subject to “discussion” based on methodologies:

Marc Ambinder

…One of the more fascinating manifestations of the split between the elite press and the newer media is in how they treat the robotic (or automated) polls of Scott Rasmussen . Mr. Rasmussen uses a variety of screens and can poll so often and so cheaply because he does not use humans to ask the questions. A computer-generated questioner interacts with the voter, who presses the corresponding button a touch-tone phone…

In August the Missouri Supreme Court threw out the law removing campaign contribution limits (previously covered at Show Me Progress – Missouri Supreme Court: give the money back, mostly), dumping the question of candidate “hardship” squarely in the lap of the Missouri Ethics Commission:

…Finally, and of key importance, is the fact that it is not this Court, but the Missouri Ethics Commission, that must initiate any enforcement action to require disgorgement of campaign contributions as to those not before this Court….If a candidate believes that retroactive application of the decision would be a hardship in his or her particular circumstances because he or she acted in good faith and in reasonable reliance and retroactive application would work an injustice, that candidate must develop with specificity what those circumstances are to the Missouri Ethics Commission. In considering these factors in particular cases or classes of cases, however, the Commission must ensure that it not become a vehicle for creating an uneven playing field for a particular office; to do so would itself create an undue hardship for and injustice to the other candidates for that office….

The question now is: Are those “hardship” hearings open? The Missouri Ethics Commission says “no”. Attorney General candidate Margaret Donnelly says “they should be”, filing a suit to force the issue.

12/12/2007

Docket Entry:   Pet Filed in Circuit Ct

Text: Verified Petition for Enforcement of the Missouri Sunshine Law, Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief, filed. mac

Filing Party: DONNELLY , MARGARET T.

Docket Entry: Mot for Temp Restraining Order

Filing Party: DONNELLY , MARGARET T.

Docket Entry: Notice of Court Hearing Sent

Text: Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is set for 12/17/2007 at 10 am, filed. mac

Filing Party: DONNELLY , MARGARET T.

Missouri attorney general candidate sues state ethics panel

By TIM HOOVER

The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent

…But the legal action is necessary because “we really have to have a presumption of openness that everyone’s going to get the same information from the commission,” Donnelly said.

“We should not be relying on candidates to voluntarily tell us” whether they are returning money…

tiny URL

Most, if not all, of the statewide candidates have said they’ll return the overages. And identifying candidates who are granted “hardship” exceptions by the commission will be ascertainable from subsequent campaign finance filings.

As for that motion for a temporary restraining order:

Lawmaker urges judge to bar closed hearings on campaign donations

By TIM HOOVER

The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent

…She asked Cole County Circuit Judge John Beetem to issue a temporary restraining order against the commission to prevent it from closing hearings, but the judge made no ruling Monday…

tiny URL

Still, it would be fun to see which lame excuses put forward by a candidate or candidates are accepted or rejected by the commission. Margaret Donnelly just might have a good point there.

[Updated]

Dec 18, 2007 6:28 PM

By DAVID A. LIEB, AP

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – A judge turned down a request Tuesday to temporarily block the Missouri Ethics Commission from holding secret hearings on whether certain candidates must refund money to big donors.

But Democratic attorney general candidate Margaret Donnelly vowed to press on with her lawsuit alleging the Ethics Commission would be violating the state Sunshine Law by holding the closed hearings….

From the docket entries:

12/18/2007   Docket Entry:   Order

Text: In short, hardship is a defense which may be raised in an enforcement action and is not an independent determination. Enforcement actions are, by statute, to be conducted in closed session. Specific statutory provisions for closed action is an exception to the general rule of open meetings and records. The Court finds that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits that the Sunshine Law prevents Ethics, in an individual enforcement case, from considering what is or is not a “hardship” in closed session. Accordingly, a temporary restraining order will not issue. The Court notes that determinations of policy, rule or statements of general applicability which are not decisions on the merits of individual cases by Ethics in the context of enforcement may be subject to the Sunshine Law. The record at this point does not permit such a determination. Ethics is directed to file its answer or other responsive pleadings within thirty (30) days of service. Cause set for status review on February 1, 2008 at 9:00 a.m., unless the matter is sooner brought before the Court. SO ORDERED this 18th day of December, 2007. //lc/JEB (Full text of formal written order to govern. See case file for formal order)

Filing Party: BEETEM , JON EDWARD

Associated Docket Entries: 12/17/2007 – Cause Taken Under Advisement

Laura Rozen, in her biographical afterword to Valerie Plame Wilson’s memoir, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House, throws some light on the role our own esteemed Senator, Kit Bond, played in that sorry affair.  In an excerpt from the afterword, printed in Mother Jones under the title “Defending Valerie Plame: Who Is This Punk?,” she describes a briefing given by a heretofore staunch Republican deputy city attorney for Royal Oak, Michigan, James Marcinkowski, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was then chaired by Kansan Pat Roberts and where Kit Bond was a long-time member.  

Marcinkowski was one of a group of ex-CIA agents who wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Times testifying to the fact that they had trained with and knew Plame Wilson and had known that she was indeed covert–a fact then in public dispute–for eighteen years. He, along with other CIA agents, including one covert agent with face and voice obscured, subsequently appeared on ABC’s Nightline to speak up for Plame Wilson. Marcinkowski also contacted the Senate Select Committee to offer them this information in aid of the Committee’s on-going investigation of pre-war intelligence.

Although the Intelligence Committee did not at first respond, Marcinkowski was contacted by the office of Senator Tom Daschle, the Senate Minority Leader at that time, and asked to testify before a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing.  Just before he did so, however, he was contacted by Intelligence Committee Chair Pat Robert’s office and asked to attend a closed meeting with the Intelligence Committee–the day before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing.  

At that meeting Marcinkowski gave testimony in accordance with the published letter.  He was asked if he thought that the White House was capable of investigating itself when:

As Marcinkowski responded that if the attorney general was trying to intimidate federal judges, why would you think they would not be prepared to intimidate a special counsel, a ranking Republican close to the White House, Christopher “Kit” Bond of Missouri, walked in.

“He went off,” Marcinkowski said. “‘I am not going to sit here and listen to this guy attack my good friend, the attorney general Ashcroft, of this country.’ “A total “food fight” ensued, Marcinkowski said, with committee member Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein accusing Bond of trying to intimidate a witness.

Marcinkowski subsequently testified at the Democratic Policy Committee hearing, although Roberts, after hearng him in a closed session, attempted to suppress his information by declaring it classified–a dramatic story worth reading in its entirety in the Mother Jone’s article or in the Plame-Wilson book.  The kicker, for Missourians though, is the heavy-handed, bullying response of our own Senator Bond, who is revealed as low enough to use his powerful position to serve the interests of Bush’s White House by trying to intimidate an honest citizen attempting to tell the truth about a friend and colleague.  Of course we all suspect that this is the way corrupt politicians do business, but it is invaluable to have it confirmed in this fashion.

There’s more too.  After the 2006 elections, when Democrats took the Senate, Kit Bond became the Intelligence Committee’s ranking republican.  According to Rozen, Bond continued to try to discredit the Wilsons.  With the spring 2007 release of “Prewar Intelligence Assessments about Postwar Iraq”-one section of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s long-awaited “Phase II” investigation of prewar intelligence which Roberts had refused to release during his tenure:

Committee Republicans complained the report was “partisan” and Vice Chairman Bond, joined by senators Orrin Hatch and Richard Burr, set about in the “additional views” to turn their attention once again to the Wilsons. “While not directly related to the subject of the report released today,” they wrote, “it is appropriate here to discuss some additional information that has come to light about an earlier prewar inquiry report . . . that deals with Iraq-Niger uranium intelligence. . . . Additional information . . . supports the Committee’s finding that Mrs. Wilson is the one who originally suggested Ambassador Wilson to look into the Iraq-Niger uranium matter….”

The trio offered few thoughts on the report’s evidence that the administration apparently ignored the prewar assessments about the difficulties the U.S. would encounter trying to establish a democracy in Iraq.

I guess this gives us a good idea about what to expect from Kit Bond’s contributions to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which is today dealing with such vital issues as FISA legislation, spying oversight, you name it.