Senator Claire McCaskill’s recent Twitter post appears to have raised the ire of the few, the loud, the tea obsessed:

The tea party thing confuses me.We’ve just passed one of the biggest tax cuts in American history & we had a record turnout in Nov. about 18 hours ago from web

Matt Taibbi explains:

The peasant mentality lives on in America

It took a good long while for news of the Teabag movement to penetrate the periphery of my consciousness – I kept hearing things about it and dismissing them, sure that the whole business was some kind of joke. Like a Daily Show invention, say. It pains me to say this as an American, but we are the only people on earth dumb enough to use a nationwide campaign of “teabag parties” as a form of mass protest, in the middle of a real economic crisis….

…This must be a terrible time to be a right-winger. A vicious paradox has been thrust upon the once-ascendant conservatives. On the one hand they are out of power, and so must necessarily rail against the Obama administration. On the other hand they have to vilify, as dangerous anticapitalist activity, the grass-roots protests against the Geithner bailouts and the excess of companies like AIG. That leaves them with no recourse but to dream up wholesale lunacies along the lines of Glenn Beck’s recent “Fascism With a Happy Face” rants, which link the protesting “populists” and the Obama adminstration somehow and imagine them as one single nefarious, connected, ongoing effort to install a totalitarian regime…

Go. Read the whole thing.

Our good senator received their wrath:

Goodness,lots of screaming tweets tonight from tea partiers. Stay calm, I’m listening. No need to insult anyone,ok to disagree in America. about 12 hours ago from web

Welcome to our world senator.

Amtrak in Missouri.

The Obama administration issued a press release today announcing their plans to further enhance rail transportation in the United States:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                            April 16, 2009

President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary LaHood Call for U.S. High-Speed Passenger Trains

Vision for a New Era in Rail Entails Clean, Energy-Efficient Option for Travelers

President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood, announced a new U.S. push today to transform travel in America, creating high-speed rail lines from city to city, reducing dependence on cars and planes and spurring economic development.

The President released a strategic plan outlining his vision for high speed rail in America. The plan identifies $8 billion provided in the ARRA and $1 billion a year for five years requested in the federal budget as a down payment to jump-start a potential world-class passenger rail system and sets the direction of transportation policy for the future.  The strategic plan will be followed by detailed guidance for state and local applicants. By late summer, the Federal Railroad Administration will begin awarding the first round of grants…

…Additional funding for long-term planning and development is expected from legislation authorizing federal surface transportation programs.

The report formalizes the identification of ten high-speed rail corridors as potential recipients of federal funding. Those lines are: California, Pacific Northwest, South Central, Gulf Coast, Chicago Hub Network, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire and Northern New England. Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to compete for funds to improve the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service.

With a boost from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Obama administration launched a competitive process to drive local communities to develop their high-speed rail potential. The President, Vice President and Secretary of Transportation are urging states and local communities to put together plans for a network of 100 mile to 600 mile corridors, which will compete for the federal dollars. The merit-driven process will result in federal grants as soon as late summer 2009.

President Obama’s vision for high-speed rail mirrors that of President Eisenhower, the father of the Interstate highway system, which revolutionized the way Americans traveled. Now, high-speed rail has the potential to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, lower harmful carbon emissions, foster new economic development and give travelers more choices when it comes to moving around the country.

“My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America.  We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come,” said President Obama.  “A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve.  High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

“Today, we see clearly how Recovery Act funds and the Department of Transportation are building the platform for a brighter economic future – they’re creating jobs and making life better for communities everywhere,” said Vice President Biden.  “Everyone knows railways are the best way to connect communities to each other, and as a daily rail commuter for over 35 years, this announcement is near and dear to my heart. Investing in a high-speed rail system will lower our dependence on foreign oil and the bill for a tank of gas; loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways; and significantly reduce the damage we do to our planet.”

“President Obama’s vision of robust, high-speed rail service offers Americans the kind of travel options that throughout our history have contributed to economic growth and enhanced quality of life,” said Secretary LaHood.  “We simply can’t build the economy of the future on the transportation networks of the past.”

The plan identifies two types of projects for funding. One would create new corridors for world-class high-speed rail like the kind found in Europe and Japan. Another would involve making train service along existing rail lines incrementally faster.

Under the plan, high-speed rail development will advance along three funding tracks:

   * Individual Projects.   Providing grants to complete individual projects that are “ready to go” with completed environmental and preliminary engineering work – with an emphasis on near term job creation.  Eligible projects include acquisition, construction of or improvements to infrastructure, facilities and equipment.

   * Corridor programs.  Developing entire phases or geographic sections of high-speed rail corridors that have completed corridor plans, environmental documentation and have a prioritized list of projects to help meet the corridor objectives.

   * Planning.  Entering into cooperative agreements for planning activities (including development of corridor plans and State Rail Plans) using non-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) appropriations funds.  This third approach is intended to help establish a structured mechanism and funding stream for future corridor development activities.

Accompanying the release was a document titled A Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, Highlights of Strategic Plan. Kansas City and St. Louis are identified as part of the “Chicago Hub Network” as one of ten regional areas targeted for potential high speed rail projects. A long term investment in infrastructure like this could change our world for the better.

Here at Show Me Progress we’re big fans of rail transportation – for its convenience, efficiency, and for its potential to alleviate future highway infrastructure challenges (like taking a load off the load of traffic on our highways).

A photo of the rally site at 11:00 am – oops, a little too early.

I incorrectly remembered the starting time for today’s public demonstration in the ad which was placed by the local teabag protest organizers in the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal last week. I showed up at 11:00 am. No one was there. With a little bit of follow up I found out that the correct starting time for the protest was noon. My schedule didn’t allow me to stay.

A freelance reporter who can read ads correctly passed on the following account:

Around twelve people joined at noon today in front of the Johnson County Courthouse in Warrensburg, MO for a small tea party in an attempt to protest against the current administration. Holding signs and walking up and down the sidewalks, when questioned on why they were there today they all responded with the same message: saying no to big government, big spending, and big taxes. Read the interviews here:

Freelance Reporter: Just so we can tell people, what’s the purpose of the gathering today?

Response: Okay, the purpose is to protest the government’s excessive spending. And try to get good reform in government. Make our political leaders aware that, you know, we’re tired of all the extra taxes and all the increasing bureaucracy and that we want to have a nice, smaller government, Constitution the way our founding fathers wanted.

Freelance Reporter: Yeah, some of the reports have been calling these the “tea parties.”  

Response: Yeah, this is a tea party.  

Freelance Reporter: So, where does that…

Response: We’ve got our tea bags here. We don’t have any water to dump it in but…

Freelance Reporter: Right. Just, can you explain the significance of that, I mean, I know, but just for our readers?

Response: Okay, well, back in colonial days they got tired of the British government overtaxing them and bigger government and they had the tea party, you remember the Boston thing where they dressed as Indians and threw the stuff in the water. So it’s a symbolic event. XXXXXXXXXX, do you want to add anything?

Response: I wasn’t listening to what you said.

Response: Okay.

Freelance Reporter: And your name’s XXXXXXXXXX?

Response: I think the tea party’s a good idea to get people’s attention and get a lot of different groups together who are interested in the same thing as far as taxes, big government, limiting those.  

Freelance Reporter: Why is it important to limit big government?

Response: Well, let’s see, government, what do we have, give me liberty, not death, government is big enough to give you everything you want, strong enough to take everything you have. Those signs pretty well say it. The bigger government gets, the more government is interested in perpetuating government rather than, than staying small and letting the people rule ourselves.

The next interview took place with a woman who was wearing glasses and had teabags taped to them. Speaking on more local issues related to Johnson County and Warrensburg specifically, this is what she had to say:

Freelance Reporter: Okay, so what’s the significance of this gathering today?

Response: Well, I’m not really sure but I was told I was supposed to wear my teabag and I see it’s taxed enough already. So I guess that’s the whole principle of it. Now we’ve got the school taxes. We would have had the zoning, you know, not tax but it would have been expensive had it passed. I was in, one of the main fighters against that.

Freelance Reporter: Right, so what, there’s been tax increases this year?

Response: Oh, there’s tax increases all the time. But the school tax passing really upsets me because we’re all too poor to be paying taxes. I can’t wait until they lower the evaluation on property so our taxes won’t be so high. Which should be the next step that somebody works on getting done. Johnson County, cause, as we all know, the value of houses has definitely gone down.

Freelance Reporter: Right. So, who do you hold responsible for the increases in taxes?

Response: (Laughing) That I probably shouldn’t answer.

Freelance Reporter: Why’s that?

Response: Just our standard government. Just the standard government. Seems to be a trend, they just keep taxing poor people until they can’t pay it. And then cry the blues because they don’t receive tax money because poor people are too poor to do it.

Freelance Reporter: Do you know the significance of the, like I’ve heard it called the tea parties and stuff like that, I just wondered if you, can you explain that a little bit to us?

Response: Yeah, now I’m not a historian so I’m not quite sure about any part of it other than I’m, Boston Tea Party’s what I understand. They’re going to put a tax on some tea and some people objected. Demonstration’s the only place you can get anything it seems like. They don’t listen unless you gather in, you know, multitudes.

The last interview was with a couple, XXXXXXXXXX, who were said to have helped organize the event. Here’s what they had to say:

Freelance Reporter: So what’s the protest against today?

Response: Just large government. Just the overspending that the large government’s been doing.

Freelance Reporter: Any specific overspending?

Response: Oh, you know, particularly the TARP bailouts and all the quote unquote stimulus programs. And, you know, it’s not a Democrat or Republican thing, both have been involved, it’s just…I mean we’re not here in response to any one political party, it’s just the extremely large government that we’ve created that just needs to be pulled back to what the Constitution calls for in the limited government, provide for the common defense and the things it was created to do instead of getting into everything from bank bailouts to mortgage (Laughs).

Freelance Reporter: So are you a member of the Constitution Party or do you…

Response: No.

Freelance Reporter: Are you affiliated with any party?

Response: Not at this point.

Response: We’re just here to, just to…

Freelance Reporter: Raise awareness?

Response: To call for responsible government and less spending, less taxing too.  

Freelance Reporter: So have we seen an increase in taxes this year? Do you feel?

Response: You know, nothing has really happened since last year but there’s, I mean, tax – that’s part of the tea party, it means taxed enough already. You know, and we know that there’s tax increases coming. You know, all the tax, taxing, um, that were cut a few years ago are scheduled to, you know, to, whatever, Sun Down Clause or whatever. They’re all going to come back into effect and we know that the President has promised to raise taxes on anybody making anywhere from $75,000 to $250,000, whatever. I mean, I heard it…

Response: Every which way.

Response: I’ve  heard it every which way so. You know, anyway, I’m just against any continued tax increase, there’s enough tax.

Response: We need to have more responsible spending, not more taxing.

Response: Yeah, you know we can’t spend our way out of debt. And the government has no money, it’s our money. It’s the, the money belongs to the people and the only money they have is what they take from us so…

Freelance Reporter: Um, let’s see, other questions I might have…so do you guys propose any solutions as far as…

Response: Just small
er, smaller government. You know, just to pull back to what the Constitution says about spending and taxing and you know, anything that limits the size and scope of government I think is appropriate. Rather than continuing to expand it. It doesn’t make any sense.

Smaller government, less spending, and no more taxes. That’s what the protestors have to offer for today’s outcry against the current administration. Not even in office 100 days and Obama has already been blamed for the steps that he’s taken to try to get us out of the financial mess. Obama hasn’t made any tax changes yet and the citizens are currently being taxed under the Bush Administration’s tax regulations. Taxes in Missouri have not gone up. In fact, Gov. Nixon is making budget cuts so that he doesn’t have to raise taxes. The Republicans in our MO House and Senate are blocking any legislation that is presented by a Democrat. With no solutions, only criticisms over what’s being done, it’s clear the tea partiers really have no clue what they’re upset about.

The Student Government Association (SGA) at the University of Central Missouri voted this week to approve a motion to oppose conceal carry on university campuses. I called the SGA office this afternoon and was informed that the vote was 12 in favor (opposed to conceal carry), 2 opposed (in favor of conceal carry), and 2 abstentions.

The Warrensburg Daily Star Journal has continued to cover this story: Student leaders vote to oppose guns on campus

Our previous posts on the subject of conceal carry on university campuses in Missouri: Denny Hoskins (r): where missing a really important vote gets you

The Faculty Senate at the University of Central Missouri will be addressing the issue next week:

Faculty Senate

Agenda Item

Motion Form

Maker: Robert Yates Second:  James Swanson

Date: April 22, 2009

A Resolution of the Faculty Senate of the University of Central Missouri

Because the purpose of a university is to acquire and disseminate knowledge,

Because the presence of guns on campus is not conducive to the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge,

Because the Missouri Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (MACLEA) opposes conceal and carry permit holders’ bringing guns to campus,

Because the presence of guns on campus directly affects the working environment of all instructors,

The Faculty Senate of the University of Central Missouri opposes any effort to allow guns on our campus and urges the Missouri legislature to maintain the rights of individual universities and community colleges to adopt their own policies concerning the present ban on guns on college campuses…

…Motion #2008-2009-19

And Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) previously said:

“…I’ve talked to Public Safety at UCM, I’ve talked to university officials and I’ve talked to a member of the Faculty Senate, but most importantly I’ve talked with many of my constituents and I support the amendment…”

Evidently he didn’t talk to enough people. Or maybe it was just to the ones he owes.

Aw, Senator Schmitt, you didn’t give us the whole story. You spoke feelingly to the audience of AARP Dems about getting health care for those earning below fifty percent of the poverty level:

This is a real passion of mine longterm on health care reform because we cannot deny we have about 750,000 uninsured people in our state. And that is a real problem because their point of entry into the health care system is generally the emergency room, which is the most inefficient way to deliver health care. It costs about ten times as much as it does to go to a primary care hysician. So the focus of the bill was to say that we’re gonna use the dollars that the hospitals received for that unreimbursed care … from the federal government. So we’re using those dollars–and the hospitals are on board with doing this–to use those dollars to plug those folks into insurance so that we can start focusing on preventive treatment, wellness, those types of things for people who really need it. So I’m proud of that. And hopefully the House will …. [Applause]

But when you spoke of plugging those folks into insurance, what you neglected to add was “well, sort of.” People making less than fifty percent of the poverty level can get Medicaid IF they can scrounge up a thousand dollars a year for a “health savings account” and IF they meet a laundry list of eligibility requirements that will eliminate some of them and that will require a federal waiver for the program. Oh, and that’s IF in any given year, the legislature chooses to appropriate the funds.

And IF hell freezes over?

Tsk. I do jump towards being harsh, don’t I? Perhaps the bill you’re co-sponsoring makes sense to you, Senator, but consider, in contrast, Governor Nixon’s proposal. He is asking that people under fifty percent of the poverty level be included in Medicaid, using the additional funds from the Hospital Association and the federal funds that money would draw down. Simple.

The plan outlined in SB 306 is Rube Goldberg-ian.  

It sets up a new bureaucracy, which will increase costs. As a recent Post-Dispatch editorial points out:

A peer-reviewed study published last June in the journal Health Affairs concluded that switching Medicaid enrollees to private insurance would increase costs by 26 percent – an average of nearly $1,500 per person.

Oh wait, I have a brainstorm. Why not go with Medicaid, save the fifteen hundred per person and spare the churchmice from coming up with a thousand apiece? And I’m not even suggesting that you put that extra $500 into insuring a few more people.

Another problem with the Senate plan is that it requires recipients to use HMOs, despite the fact that many of them live in rural areas that are not served by HMOs (but would be served by Medicaid).

And none of this labyrinthine law is necessary.

My question is “Why?” If you really want to help poor people get health care, why set up unnecessary hurdles and why ask people who earn, well, almost enough money to feed themselves and rent a roof to find another thousand bucks somewhere?

I have to say that I’m in danger of becoming cynical about Republican motives when it comes to helping the poorest among us get health care.

Goldberg cartoon courtesy of Wikipedia