23 Saturday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
In the case of Erich “Mancow” Muller, it took six seconds before he admitted that waterboarding is torture, joining a vast chorus of people with one shred of a clue or knowledge of international law, norms, and precedents.
Mancow’s obviously not a real man, like Sean Hannity and he’ll need to say something mind-numbingly stupid and ignorant to get invited back on Fox News.
22 Friday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
It isn’t just the nations capitol that employs the tactic of dumping unpleasant and/or damaging news on a Friday afternoon. They do it in the state capitol, too, and today’s is a doozy, involving the settlement in the Scott Eckersley wrongful termination case.
Eckersley, you may recall, was a staff attorney in the Matt Blunt administration, who was terminated in September 2007 on specious grounds after having the temerity to suggest that the administration was not above the law and had to comply with email preservation and open records requirements as specified by state statute.
As part of today’s agreement, Blunt and the other defendents – Rich AuBuchon, Richard Chrismer, Henry Hershel and Ed Martin, as well as Mr. Eckersley, issued a joint statement:
“The lawsuit in this case was filed following the termination of Scott Eckersley’s employment by the Office of the Governor, State of Missouri. Based on the claims and defenses asserted by both plaintiff and defendants, all of the parties strongly believe in the merits of their positions. However, for various reasons including the cost of continuing to litigate this matter through trial, all of the undersigned parties to the Release agree that settling the case for the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) on behalf of the defendants and the State Legal Expense Fund, in exchange for full and complete release of all claims asserted, is in the best interests of the taxpayers of the State of Missouri.”
Best interest of the taxpayers, eh? You don’t say!
This case has already cost $1.35 million to defend – and it settled for half a million?
Something of a false economy there, don’t you think?
22 Friday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
In Catch-22, Major Major’s father was a wealthy alfalfa farmer who had gotten rich by having the government pay him not to grow alfalfa and who used his money to buy more land, with the result that he “soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county.” (p.86)
The parallel may not be exact but consider: pork and poultry CAFOs are asking the USDA to buy up–to the tune of $75 million in the last six months–the extra meat they’re producing that they can’t sell. Meanwhile, the USDA is guaranteeing loans to pork and poultry producers who want to build new CAFOs or expand existing ones.
Major Major’s father would approve. True, CAFOs aren’t getting paid not to raise hogs, but they are getting paid to raise hogs nobody wants–and getting paid to raise even more hogs nobody wants. Similar principle.
And while the USDA is buying up their excess product–even as it helps them to overproduce even more–the little guy keeps getting squeezed. He’s not getting these subsidies. Oh well, who cares, right?
If you care, then know that The Missouri Rural Crisis Center is getting the word out about the dodge that the CAFOs have going on and is urging Missourians to sign on to a letter to Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack.
If Vilsack were really on top of the job, he would have noticed and rectified this double dipping already, but it’s our job to nudge him in the right direction.
22 Friday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
Here is the front view of the Missouri governor’s mansion.
The docents dress in period costumes for the tourists.
No matter how long you linger, you’ll always find new details you hadn’t noticed before, like this hinge on the front door.
In fact, when Jane Bruss pointed out to me the Missouri seal on the front doorknob, the docent was startled. Even she had failed to notice that.
As you walk into the foyer (I’ll save shots of that for another posting), a small parlor lies to the left. It was closed that day in April for redecorating. I won’t even guess at how many hours it takes to repaint all that fine detail.
The docent told us that a young man who was playing Tom Sawyer in some theatrical production got a chance to slide down this banister into the foyer.
22 Friday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Allen Icet, budget, Denny Hoskins, Gary Nodler, General Assembly, lobbyist, Madsen & Wright, missouri, Phil Wright
Phil Wright of Madsen & Wright, a lobbyist registered with the Missouri Ethics Commission, spoke on Thursday night to the Johnson County Democratic Club on the recently concluded legislative session. His presentation covered a wide range of subjects including the impact of economic stabilization and stimulus funds, term limits, controversial bills, and the budget. His talk (and questions from the audience) was well over forty minutes long. What follows is a transcript of a portion of his presentation dealing with the budget process this session:
Phil Wright, Madsen & Wright, speaking to the Johnson County Democratic Club on Thursday night.
Phil Wright, Madsen & Wright: [23:01]…Let me talk a little bit about the budget process. And I do follow the budget…And it was…I don’t think you’ve ever seen it like this year in where the subcommittees go through their hearing process. And they had a parade of people come and give their testimony and they talked to them about the issues and things like priorities and that are needs for their area. And the subcommittees make their recommendations; they hear reports and then make their recommendations and they, to the, to the budget committee. Well the budget bills have already been written. Behind closed doors. They haven’t been introduced, so anybody can see them. And so, all that work was just sort of wasted. It wasn’t, it wasn’t taken to account. Nobody really did anything with it, but because the chairman, Allen Icet [r], wrote, wrote the bill and dictated on what that was going to be. He had his plan on how he was going to do it. And then the chairman in the Senate Appropriations, Gary Nodler [r], had his plan and how he was going to do it. And then you had the Governor’s office who had to administer all this, so they had, they were trying to figure out a plan as well…
…Now I do believe that the Senate and The Governor’s office were talking much more than anybody was ever talking to the House. It became very obvious when, in years past there’s been, okay, the House is gonna put this money in ’cause they don’t want to touch this one issue, but the Senate will touch that one issue, they’ll put some money in. And then when, and then whenever they get to conference, they’ll trade it out. Well, in this year the House did their thing, the Senate did their thing. And, and they’re like this. I mean, there was never, there was never a, there never seemed to be a connection until conference, and even then it was just kind of, it, it was just a very bizarre process. About the time you start to have things figured out, that they were changing on you. And, and move money out, and, you know, we saw House Bill 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and 22 introduced. Completely, and a lot of that time, because they were moving money around, they were saying, “Well, I don’t like, I don’t like what’s in that bill, so I’m gonna put, I’m gonna do my thing over here in this bill.” There wasn’t really any rhyme or reason to it. It was more about, it, they, they weren’t going to pay any attention to the process. It was ugly to watch. It was ugly to try and participate in. And it was damn hard to participate in it…
…But it was also hard for legislators to represent their constituents. I, I don’t see how, I mean I talked with, with Representative Hoskins and Senator Pearce on a regular basis to try to help them figure things out and so they could help me figure things out, too. And it was difficult because the information was not being shared. At all. They were asking, they were looking, and the information was not being shared. And, so I don’t know how, hopefully the process will be better next year. Yeah.
Show Me Progress: I find it interesting because, you know, Denny Hoskins is on the budget committee, am I correct? And he ran as a CPA.
Phil Wright: Yes.
SMP: And he’s, it’s now he’s got trouble with the, the process of the budget? Or was he cut out of it?
Phil Wright: Every single legislator on the committee knew nothing, except for the chair. And if, and if, but if others did know, and they weren’t, and they weren’t sharing it, they were very good at hiding it…[26:54]
22 Friday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
As .Sean at Fired Up correctly notes, the Right will soon pitch a hissy fit over the Saint Louis Election Board’s allegation that a handful of voters improperly voted in the Saint Louis area last year. He’s also correct in predicting that the Right will work hard to ignore the fact that forcing voters to present a government issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot will do virtually nothing to stop someone whose registered address is at a vacant lot from casting their ballot.
There are all sorts of problems with voter registration in this country. For example, the collection of data and portability are both problematic. Poor handwriting on the registrant’s part and/or bad eyesight at the data entry end could register someone’s address down the street at a vacant lot or boarded up home instead of their correct address. And many people don’t understand that you need to update your voter registration every time you move. I had to convince the janitor at my day job that she needed to reregister at her home address – she had voted every election day with her mother since she lived at home decades ago, even though her mother lives in another legislative district!
Typically, those on the Right who like to bang on the table about “voting reform” really just mean they want to put up additional hurdles to voting. But Michael Connery over at Future Majority shares some thoughts on how we might address issues like making sure voter registrations are accurate and up to date AND make sure as many voters as possible are registered and able to vote.
A federal mandate should be passed to require affirmative and automatic registration. Specified and privacy-protected data transfers and information sharing should occur from federal and state databases to the state voter rolls as a means of continuously updating the list. By eliminating the data entry and duplicate and error verification follow-up responsibilities of local officials, there will be large cost savings at the county level. Federal funding should be provided to make it possible for states to implement this mandate. States should also use specified private database transfers or information sharing to keep citizens on the rolls permanently at their most up-to-date address. States should perform same-day balloting as a catch-all for citizens.
22 Friday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
Blunt voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act in committee today, after trying to gut it with a horrible amendment yesterday.
21 Thursday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
That’s a really good question. The chairman of the National Republican Senate Committee, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), just said he’d be proud to campaign with former VP Dick Cheney, anytime, anywhere, when asked if Cheney was an asset to the Republican Party’s electoral chances in 2010.
Via Politico:
Asked if Cheney would be a good surrogate for Senate Republican candidates, Cornyn said: “It think it depends on the circumstance on the race.”
But Cornyn said, “I’d be proud to appear with the vice president anywhere, anytime.”
I’m curious about what Republican candidates for Senate here in Missouri think. Is Cheney an asset to their party? Would they want to campaign with Cheney?
21 Thursday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) weighs in on Guantánamo Bay via Twitter:
We will close Gitmo, We must keep America safe & shut down terrorist recruiting tool.We have to plan & do it right, just not as quickly. about 2 hours ago from web
Glenn Greenwald:
Wednesday May 20, 2009 07:04 EDT
Terrorists in Prison: is there anything the Right doesn’t fear?…Despite all that, we never tire of the specter of the Big, Bad, Villainous, Omnipotent Muslim Terrorist. They’re back, and now they’re going to wreak havoc on the Homeland — devastate our communities — even as they’re imprisoned in super-max prison facilities. How utterly irrational is that fear? For one thing, it’s empirically disproven. Anyone with the most minimal amount of rationality would look at the fact that we have already convicted numerous alleged high-level Al Qaeda Terrorists in our civilian court system (something we’re now being told can’t be done) — including the cast of villains known as the Blind Shiekh a.k.a. Mastermind of the First World Trade Center Attack, the Shoe Bomber, the Dirty Bomber, the American Taliban, the 20th Hijacker, and many more — and are imprisoning them right now in American prisons located in various communities.
We’ve been doing that for two decades. What are all the bad and scary things that have happened as a result? The answer is: “nothing.” Take note, Chris Cillizza and friends: while it’s true that “not a single prisoner has escaped from Gitmo since it was created,” it’s also true that no Muslim Terrorists have escaped from American prisons and our SuperMax prison “has had no escapes or serious attempts to escape.” Actually, the only person to even make an escape attempt from a SuperMax is Green Arrow, who hasn’t succeeded despite the help of Joker and Lex Luthor…
Senator McCaskill continues:
I respect John McCain for expertise in holdng & prosecutng military prisoners.He also said he’d close Gitmo durng campaign,but need plan. about 2 hours ago from web
“…but need plan.”
Uh, how about put them in prison? That seems to work for everyone else.
The incomparable Digby:
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
by digby
…Look, this is just one more example of the politics of national security trumping actual national security. Logic says that Guantanamo could be closed today and these prisoners could be brought tomorrow to military brigs around the country if not maximum security prisons we have by the dozens. The rest of the world would see Obama fulfilling his clear and unambiguous promise to close it (a promise he shared with his Republican rival, btw) and would gain tremendous credibility around the world for doing so. But the Republicans have the Democrats running scared on national security again and that’s the end of that.
Let’s not pretend there’s really a “debate” going on here. The Democrats are more scared of Republicans than they are of terrorists or anything else and that’s what’s driving this.
Put them in prisons. [Head smack] Why didn’t I think of that? Oh yeah, right, I did.
21 Thursday May 2009
Posted in Uncategorized
Is America Too Top Heavy?
Why Regulating Wall Street Isn’t Enough
by Byron DeLear
Our Founding Fathers were all about preventing tyranny as they were throwing off the yoke of the British Empire; the despotism of Crown and Church, they could see it a million miles away and designed our government to prevent it.
Their remedy? Checks-and-balances, compartments of government self-regulated through inter-agency skepticism and scrutiny.
Given the recent Wall Street bailouts in the amount of trillions upon trillions, deficit spending and skyrocketing debt, it seems as if an important protection to help Washington be more accountable is missing from the Founder’s design. But it isn’t. It just hasn’t been used.
A consensus has emerged on how to fix the rules in our broken financial system – Regulation. This response to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression sees the deregulation that had occurred in the banking and mortgage industry – combined with good ol’ fashioned greed – as the primary cause of the collapse. It follows then, that by restoring key corporate oversight, a future economic meltdown will be averted. Only regulating Wall Street won’t be enough.
Wall Street had a silent partner in creating this mess: Washington, DC. Without the collusion between Wall Street and Washington, this debacle wouldn’t have been possible. The lobbyist driven repeal of important protections such as the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 or the unregulated mania of corporations like AIG, Bear Stearns or Lehman would never have occurred without a complicit Congress, essentially bribed to be asleep at the switch. We have witnessed, quite literally, the ‘Enron-nization’ of the American economy.
In our nation’s history, the Federal government has offered top-down guidance to the States. Sometimes in the form of a moral check-and-balance as in the case of women’s voting rights or guaranteeing African-Americans entry into schools in the South. America became stronger through these interventions. But the reverse, a restraining check-and-balance to an excessive Federal government, is also necessary. When Washington has grown beyond its means, overreaching and incapable of self-correction, the people must intervene.
This was the purpose of the convention clause of Article V of the US Constitution, to give the people an opportunity to offer solutions to a recalcitrant Congress unwilling or unable to act. When corruption has become institutionalized into the Federal government, the States can petition for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, a process occurring outside of Washington, bypassing the entrenched corruption. Before becoming law, amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, eliminating any extreme or radical proposals.
But ideas like a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would help to root out abuse and cronyism inherent in the system today, could be introduced and seriously debated through our nation’s first Article V Convention. Delegates would assemble, C-SPAN would cover it, we would all get educated a little more and our representative democracy reinvigorated. There is a critical reason why the convention clause exists, and the Framer’s put it there not to be ignored, but to provide a “peaceful alternative to a violent revolt” during times of strong popular frustration with the Federal government.
Constitutional scholars believe we have been denied our right to a convention. To date, there have been 754 valid applications from all 50 States for an Article V Convention that have hit the doorstep of Congress, far surpassing the two-thirds threshold needed (34). The research documenting these applications was completed last year by an intrepid non-partisan group of legal experts, a retired Michigan Supreme Court Justice and impassioned citizens from every State. The Friends of Article V Convention (FOAVC.org) assert that Congress has not only failed in its non-discretionary duty to issue the call, but is purposefully quashing the convention as a perceived (and real) threat to its power.
Aside from the partisan polemics surrounding the recent Tea Parties, it’s clear that millions of Americans of all political stripes are voicing deep concerns for the future of our country. They see the massive influence of lobbying power, industries writing their own laws, shameless earmark abuse and trillion dollar bailouts as the symptoms of a broken system.
President Eisenhower once remarked about Article V,
“Through their state legislatures and without regard to the federal government, the people can demand a convention to propose amendments that can and will reverse any trends they see as fatal to true representative government.”
It may be time to finally heed the original design our Founding Fathers built into the law of the land for just such an occasion – they did have a couple things right after all.
Byron Walker DeLear is an author, lecturer, former US Congressional Candidate in Missouri and co-founder of Friends of Article V Convention. He can be reached at: ByronDeLear@gmail.com