“Excuse me, are you a registered voter in St. Louis County?” That’s what the African-American man in his  … forties? fifties?… asked me as I walked out of the library. When I said I was, he offered me a petition to sign on the eminent domain issue. Two of them, actually. And I was delighted to have a chance to do that.

While I filled in my address, I asked him if he was a volunteer or if he was being paid to collect signatures. “Oh, I’m paid. I don’t do much for free,” he said with a smile. I returned it.

Then he offered me another petition that would, he said, “ban discrimination based on race or gender.” Little alarm bells rang in my head. This isn’t that petition to get rid of affirmative action, is it?” I asked. He allowed as how it was.

“I’m not signing that one. That’s a terrible idea. That’s the one being pushed by …”

“Some guy from California,” he said.

“Right. Ward Connerly.”

“Yeah. Well, I’ll vote against it,” he said.

“If it makes it onto the ballot, you mean.”

“Oh, it’s already on the ballot in Colorado. That’s where I’m from.”

I told the man I was a blogger and handed him my card. “That’s really strange,’ I said, “that you’d be gathering signatures for petitions from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Who do you work for?”

“National Ballot Access,” he told me.

“Well, that particular initiative is extremely deceptive.”

“I just read what the ballot language says. Some of these people will tell voters that this petition is for affirmative action; they’ll deny it’s anti-affirmative action to a person’s face. Not me. I just read what the language says.”

His unspoken message was, I got a living to make. And I had to leave home to do it.

I understood that, so I agreed that he had only read what the language said, but I reiterated that it was deceptive language. We chit chatted for a couple of minutes about what we knew: I said five states had been targeted and he reminded me that, besides Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado were on the list and that Connerly had already pulled out of Oklahoma. I said the other state was in the Southwest. “New Mexico?” I asked. He couldn’t remember. Turns out it was Arizona.

He told me that when the first affirmative action bill was passed in 1964, “we weren’t looking for a hand out or even a hand up, we were looking for a hand in. And it’ll hurt women, not just blacks.”

“From what I understand, in California it hurt women even more than it hurt blacks.” He nodded.

As I prepared to leave, he wished me a good day and put a hand on my shoulder. I did the same, and he gave me a solid hug.

As I drove away, I realized that I was supposed to call a toll free number so that WE CAN could send someone to that location to pass out flyers. Oh man, this was a dilemma. I oppose that amendment, but sicking people on that man? Ouch. I compromised with my conscience and waited until late afternoon to call.

Sorry, mister. Sorry, WE CAN. I was in as much of a no win situation as that vote collector.

But if this petition barely makes it onto the ballot, I’m going to feel rotten.

I knew, of course, that state reps often vote for something they don’t really approve of because they don’t want to take the heat for voting against it. They know that the Senate often kills those bad bills and saves them the trouble of facing constituents who thought such and such was a good idea.

Still, when the Bombardier deal sailed through the House 125-16, I thought uh-oh. Yeah, sure, the Senate’s been less than lukewarm to the idea, but this might be one of those deals that everybody’s afraid to kill.

Not so. From PubDef:

The controversial $800 million tax credit for a Canadian airplane manufacturer has been killed this morning in the Senate Governmental Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee.

The so-called “Bombardier” deal, named after the Canadian airplane manufacturer who would benefit from this tax credit, the largest in state history, was killed in committee this morning by a vote of 5-2, with Senators Jeff Smith (D-4), Rita Days (D-14), Wes Shoemeyer (D-18), Brad Lager (R-12), and Rob Mayer (R-25) voting against it.

Thank you to Senators Shoemyer, Days, and Smith. And yes, thank you to Republican Senators Lager and Mayer.

Crossposted at EENR Blog.

A number of commenters have made the point that John McCain’s health care plan is horrible policy, but on such an important issue, it’s a point that bears repeating. Obama and Clinton have minor differences on health care between them compared to the chasm that separates their essentially good plans from McCain’s terrible ideas, which are really just out of the George W. Bush playbook.

McCain’s plan has two main features. The first is a refundable tax credit worth $5,000 per family to defray the costs of purchasing health insurance coverage. This would be offset in the federal budget by cancelling the tax deduction employers get for providing health care benefits to employees. In other words, the federal government would provide financial incentives to end employer-based coverage and replace it with a system in which the burden is entirely on each individual.

Elizabeth Edwards takes this proposal down nicely. She points out that on average, health insurance costs an American family $12,000 per year. But most American families and individuals have plans that are provided through their employer, who by virtue of their larger size are able to negotiate lower insurance rates than individuals looking for coverage on their own. The $5,000 the family gets from the government will not make up for the $9,000 that the employer contributes yearly on average to an employee’s premiums, and the individual will pay a larger premium because they don’t have the bargaining power of larger numbers.

More below the flip.

It appears McCain was also sensitive to the criticism that he would leave out those who, just like John McCain, have preconditions that would lead insurers to deny coverage or charge exorbitant rates. So he is proposing to set up a “Guaranteed Access Plan”, state-run high risk pools. States would pool all citizens with health conditions that would price them out of normal coverage, then bargain with private insurers to get those citizens covered. It sounds good, except as Jon Cohn points out, those pools already exist in 30 states (Missouri has such a pool, MHIP), and they are expensive and poorly regulated. For up to a year, most people aren’t even covered for the conditions that got them blocked from regular insurance in the first place, so they have to pay out of pocket for care alongside their high insurance premiums. Cohn runs through the case of Elizabeth Edwards, if she were in such a pool:

It turns out that North Carolina, where Edwards lives, doesn’t actually have a high-risk pool in operation right now. (It hopes to launch one next year.) But neighboring South Carolina does. Pollitz was able to track down published figures with the rates the South Carolina pool would charge a 50-year-old man. (Edwards, a 57-year-old woman, would actually pay more.) And according to those figures, Edwards’ most cost-effective option would be to choose a plan that had monthly premiums of $867 for six months, followed by $693 every month thereafter.

That plan comes with a $1,500 deductible; in other words, every year Edwards would have to pay $1,500 in medical bills before the insurance kicked in. After that, she’d have to deal with the cost-sharing until she had spent another $3,500 out of her pocket.

If you do the math, you’ll see that means Edwards would end up paying more than $14,000 a year in insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses. (At least for now. The rates go up in July.)

And for the first year, Edwards’ cancer treatments wouldn’t be covered, so she would have to pay for all medicine and treatment – potentially $100,000 – out of pocket. I suppose it’s better than being uninsured altogether (she would be covered for treatment if she had the flu, or a broken arm), but not by much.

There’s another insidious side to McCain’s plan. Some states actually regulate insurance companies more strictly than the federal government, but under McCain, the looser federal regulations would supercede all state regulations. For example, in states that have passed a ban on cherrypicking the insured based on pre-existing conditions, the federal law would repeal the ban.

To sum up, under McCain, you would stop getting benefits at work and start paying more for coverage on your own. If you have a medical condition when your employer drops coverage, you might be lucky enough to get covered, but you’ll have to pay a lot more for it, and pay out of pocket until your new, expensive coverage sets in. Does any of this sound like a good idea?

There’s a certain Zen-like peacefulness to observing the inevitability of a lead balloon plummeting to earth.

SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll on April 25th taken in Missouri from April 11th through the 13th which shows that dubya’s poor approval rating is going down, down, down. Or, if you prefer, circling the drain. The margin of error is 3.8% (the bigger the difference, the lower the margin of error).

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as President?

All

30% – approve

68% – disapprove

2% – not sure

Democrats [39% of sample]

6% – approve

94% – disapprove

0% – not sure

republicans [24% of sample]

75% – approve

22% – disapprove

3% – not sure

Independents [29% of sample]

25% – approve

73% – disapprove

2% – not sure

He’s doing much worse, much worse among Independents. His republican base is the same. Democrats definitely don’t like him.

Top Issues for Next President (dubya’s approval numbers within each group)

Economy [44% of sample]

21% – approve

77% – disapprove

2% – not sure

Health Care [12% of sample]

14% – approve

82% – disapprove

3% – not sure

Iraq [11% of sample]

30% – approve

69% – disapprove

1% – not sure

Terrorism [9% of sample]

78% – approve Hide under your bed!

22% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Immigration [6% of sample]

61% – approve

38% – disapprove

1% – not sure

Environment [6% of sample]

16% – approve

84% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Social Security [4% of sample]

34% – approve

66% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Education [4% of sample]

32% – approve They really were “left behind” as children.

68% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Yep, those gas prices sour everyone. A recession doesn’t help anyone’s mood either. It’s the economy, stupid.

dubya continues with net approval among the republican “fear” base (terrorism and immigration). He has net disapproval among those worried about the economy, health care, education, Social Security, and the environment.  

Those most worried about Iraq still think he sucks. So much for trotting out propaganda on television.

There are three candidates running in the 38th Legislative District which is in Clay County:

State Representative – District 38 (ballot order)

Republican

Ryan Silvey Gladstone MO 2/26/2008

Marcus P. McIntire Kansas City MO 3/17/2008

Democratic

Josh Reed Gladstone MO 2/26/2008

In 2006 the Democratic challenger lost by 11.4%.

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – November 2006 – General Election

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

State Representative – District 38 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 13 of 13

Silvey, Ryan REP 7,480 55.7%

Spears, Dennis DEM 5,960 44.3%

Total Votes   13,440

Let’s take a look at a bit of election history:

Dan Bishop (D) (see below) died after the November 2004 election and a special election was held to fill the vacancy.

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri Special Election  – State Representative–District 38

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Ryan Silvey REP 3,468 51.6%

Teresa Loar DEM 3,255 48.4%

Total Votes   6,723

Oh so close. Special elections. We need to do a lot better as a society in turning out.

Silvey (r) ran against the Democratic incumbent in 2004 and lost:

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

State Representative – District 38 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 13 of 13

Bishop, Dan DEM 8,919 51.7%

Silvey, Ryan REP 8,348 48.3%

Total Votes   17,267

Silvey (r) had a close party primary in 2004 – he barely won:

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri Primary Election

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

State Representative – District 38 – Summary

Bishop, Dan DEM 4,812 100.0%

Silvey, Ryan REP 2,140 51.7%

Bowman, Judy REP 1,997 48.3%

Total Votes   8,949

Do you get the feeling that there were competing republican factions?

Let’s take a look at 2002:

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – 11/5/2002

Tuesday, November 05, 2002

State Representative – District 38 – Summary

Bishop, Dan DEM 5,306 52.6%

Bowman, Judy REP 4,785 47.4%

Total Votes   10,091

Hmm. Judy Bowman (r) had a close race with the Democratic incumbent in 2002 – and Silvey took her on in the primary in 2004. Hmm. It definitely smells like some republican factionalism is going on here.

On to the first quarter 2008 campaign finance reports:

Marcus McIntire (r) filed a Committee Statement of Limited Activity (pdf) with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 14th. This means that he neither raised nor spent more than $500.00.

Ryan Silvey is the incumbent republican in the race:

Rep. Ryan Silvey

94th General Assembly

Born April 17, 1976 in Kansas City, Missouri, Rep. Ryan Silvey, a Republican, represents part of Clay County (District 38) in the Missouri House of Representatives. First elected to the House in a special election in 2005, Rep. Silvey is a former legislative aide to U.S. Senator Kit Bond…

…A 1994 graduate of Oak Park High School in Kansas City, Rep. Silvey received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Interpretive Speech from the Bob Jones University in 1998.

This has got to be one of the sparsest legislator biographies I’ve ever seen.

Ryan Silvey (r) filed his first quarter 2008 campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 14th.

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR RYAN SILVEY

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $42,750.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $2,375.00

3. ALL LOANS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $0.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $45,125.00

14. TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES MADE THIS PERIOD (SUM 11A + 12A + 13A) $12,159.78

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $24,178.39

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $25,939.09

[emphasis added]

What did he spend the money on?:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR RYAN SILVEY

Report[ ]Date: 4/15/2008

Mark Wright Jefferson City, MO 01/03/2008 Fundraising Services $8,500.00

M & W Consulting Jefferson City, MO 01/24/2008 Fundraising Services $1,250.00

Hmmm. That doesn’t appear to be a good return on investment.

Let’s see where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR RYAN SILVEY

Report Date: 4/15/2008

Law Offices of Charlie Dickman, LLC KC, MO 03/16/2008 $50.00

Teamsters Local 541 Political Action Fund KC, MO 03/28/2008 $325.00

17th Legislative District Republican Committee St. Charles, MO 03/31/2008 $400.00

Republican 18th District Legislative Committee St. Charles, MO 03/31/2008 $1,600.00

12. TOTAL ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $25 OR LESS $0.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $0.00

[emphasis added]

That’s it. That’s the totality of this quarter.

Isn’t that grasroots wave a sight to behold?

Let’s take a look at his fourth quarter 2007 campaign finance report, maybe there’s something there:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR RYAN SILVEY

Report Date: 1/15/2008

[Lots and lots of contributions from P.O. Box 1901 and P.O. Box 23200]

(8. TOTAL: ITEMIZED CONTRIBUTIONS THIS PERIOD : $37,350.00)

12. TOTAL ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $25 OR LESS $0.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $0.00

[emphasis added, added comment in italics]

Uh, yeah. Two post office boxes account for the majority of his fundraising. And he expended almost $10,000.00 on fundraising? Holy cow.

I’m telling you – the grassroots just jumps right out at ya’. Not. You’d think maybe one or two actual individual constituents in his district would cut a check. Wow. Just wow.

If somebody wanted to really pound the pavement I bet they could take this guy on.

Joshua Reed (D) filed his first quarter 2008 campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 14th.

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: JOSHUA REED FOR CHANGE

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $0.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $4,025.60

3. ALL LOANS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $3,510.00

6. IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $1,412.12

7. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD (SUM 5A + 6A) $8,947.72

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $8,947.72

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $
693.74

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $6,841.86

[emphasis added]

Where did the money come from?:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: JOSHUA REED FOR CHANGE

Report Date: 3/31/2008

(8. TOTAL: ITEMIZED CONTRIBUTIONS THIS PERIOD : $5,437.72)

9. AMOUNT OF ITEM 8 THAT WAS RECEIVED AS MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS $4,025.60

10. AMOUNT OF ITEM 8 THAT WAS RECEIVED AS IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS$1,412.12

A few party committees and a number of individual contributions. There are $10.00 and $25.00 contributors listed. Now that’s “grass rootsie”.

What did he spend money on?:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: JOSHUA REED FOR CHANGE

Report[ ]Date: 3/31/2008

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

district maps $45.00

postage $96.11

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

Service Printing & Graphics Kansas City MO 03/17/2008 $552.63

Somebody is going door to door and they’re going to give a republican incumbent a run for his two post office box’s money.

Signs of life from the Clinton campaign. It’s not surprising that Skelton endorsed Hillary Clinton, but it’s mildly surprising that he would do so at this late date with such a slim chance for Clinton to take the nomination. Was it the Wright controversy that finally pulled Skelton out of the woodwork, or did our very own 4th District resident and Hillary supporter Michael Bersin finally get to him?

For those who wanted to see Wright’s interview on Moyers show, here are four clips that comprise the whole:

PubDef has video of 5th Senatorial District candidate Connie Johnson’s presser yesterday, and it’s a doozy. The first part is Johnson delivering a statement in which she defends her residency and more importantly rips her opponents. Stalking horse? I don’t think so. Hubbard gets it for raking in contributions from Sinquefield and McKee, amounting to a third of his warchest. Wright-Jones gets a lashing for her attendance record while a real estate crisis hits St. Louis. The second part is the grilling Johnson gets from local reporters on her residency.

A couple of thoughts on this. First, as I’ve said before, I don’t expect that Rep. Johnson will be disqualified, because Missouri law has a very loose definition of residency, and further, that as long as Johnson runs a half-way decent campaign, nobody will care about this residency flap in the end. Several lawmakers in the St. Louis area won election with far more tenuous claims to their districts than Johnson has.

That leads me to my next point. Johnson did a good job in her statement of hitting her opponents hard, as two rivals nervous about her candidacy and eager to distract from the big issues. But she never directly mentions what those big issues are, nor does she mention what accomplishments her opponents are trying to distract voters’ attention from. I still haven’t heard her make a positive case for voters to choose her as a state senator. The most I got out of that statement was that she does indeed live in the district, and that she seeks to maintain the historical African American representation of the district. Well, she’s hardly unique in that race in either of those cases.

Pubdef’s videos, and Connie’s statement, are below the flip.

Part 1:

Thank you all for coming out this morning.

I have called this press conference because I, like most Americans, am tired of the politics of hit and run. I like most Americans am weary of the politics of distraction and dishonesty. And I like most Americans, believe that elected officials have a responsibility to serve their constituents-not themselves.

From the moment I entered this race my opponents have in one fashion or another panicked. Rodney Hubbard panicked and was able to convince his Right wing Republican Billionaire to kick in 50 more contributions–1/3 of his total and Robin Wright Jones panicked and filed a frivolous lawsuit in order to bring some light and attention to her struggling year old campaign for this Senate Seat.

For the record I am flattered by their fear and I appreciate their recognition of the impact of my candidacy. However, for the record, I am deeply concerned about their tactics and where these tactics take us as a community and as members of the Democratic Party.

Ten months ago I told the St. Louis Post Dispatch that I would not be part of events that would facilitate the elimination of an African American Senate Seat. Ten months ago I said: “As a statesman I have to look at the big picture and the big picture is the importance of preserving history and having African American representation in the 5th Senatorial district.”

As fate or providence would have it, four days before filing closed, the only white Candidate in contention decided not to run. There was now no danger of our community losing representation. So, I had a decision to make-do I now run for this Senate Seat? Do I run for a seat that has been historically, from Jet Banks to Paula Carter, located in the heart of North Saint Louis?

My decision was an easy one–of course I would run.

I would run because now I would be able to lay my head down at night knowing that not only would my Community be able to ensure African American Representation, but they would now have the choice of the most qualified, principled and credentialed African American Representation.

My decision to run was founded upon a love of community and a passion to ensure equal representation for all. These belief sets are also shared by the Democratic Party.

My opponents however have pounced upon my filing and attempted to use it as a means of distraction from the serious issues that confront our communities.

Downtown St Louis for the past 6 years under the direction and leadership of realtor Robin Wright Jones and the 63rd district, is in the middle of a real estate crisis-unfilled lofts, bankrupt developers, and a huge muddy empty hole in the middle of Ball park village. I have often wondered as Minority Whip, why Ms Wright Jones was missing so many important votes. I now see that she was quite busy-manufacturing stories and crafting frivolous lawsuits.

My other opponent is busy as well-missing votes, currying favor for the opposition and gathering right wing Republican cash.

Unfortunately, in the world of politics from Baraak Obama to Hillary Clinton, money does represent the bulk of the fuel that goes in to a political campaign. Operating on this political theory, my opponents hope that you will be so distracted by their lies and complaints about when I filed or where I live that their actions will hurt my fundraising efforts.

Well, I am here this morning to say enough. We as Democrats have a responsibility to address our serious issues–not manufacture, because we need money, political opportunities at the expense of the truth and at the expense of our constituents.

To this end I will have had my Attorney file the necessary motions that will put an end to this frivolous lawsuit filed by my desperate opponent.

Mark my words-I will be vindicated-these lies will not stand and I will be on the ballot in August.

Brett Penrose on seeing the sight of insightful government oversight:

Never let people with smart mouths, bad attitudes, and political axes to grind near a union print shop. If you do so, they will inevitably gravitate toward creating a sarcastic bumper sticker. It’s got to be genetic.

The bumper sticker is 11 inches wide and 3 inches high. The background is actually white (okay, I’m not the world’s greatest photographer, so sue me).

Here’s the deal:

We printed 500 of these suckers (the photo really doesn’t do it justice, so sue me – I tell you, it “pops” live) at a union shop. Printing at a union shop is the only way to go. Are you paying attention Democratic Party candidates?

Since the Show Me Progress corporate headquarters has a staff of exactly zero we do not have the necessary infrastructure to fill requests that ask us to “please send me three”.

However, if you want to acquire 100 of these beauties for distribution as you see fit, we can talk. Contact us at: info@showmeprogress.com  If we get enough large orders we can order a really large printing (thereby driving the costs way down) and everybody will then be really happy. We won’t have distribution headaches, the meme achieves complete saturation, and a union print shop will be kept busy twenty four hours a day, seven days a week until early November.

Everybody will be happy. Except for actual republicans.

Now, don’t get upset with us because we can’t send you “just three”. We have a choice here. Write and post blog content, or fill bumper sticker orders one at a time. I think you’ll agree with the choice we made.

We plan on bringing the bumper stickers with us to the Missouri Democratic Party convention in Columbia on May 10th. Then again, if they’re all gone by then we’ll try to figure something out about getting more produced and distributed to the consumer masses.

A way to acquire a few of these beauties before May 10th is to actually see one of us before then.  Not so fast. Right now they’re sitting in one spot in the west central part of the state. We haven’t gotten a chunk of them to our folks in the eastern part of the state yet. Once we figure that out, we’ll let you all know.