In response to the news that Kit Bond was apparently unable to stay awake during an intelligence briefing yesterday – after while later claiming on MSNBC that Attorney General Eric Holder had kept important intelligence information from his committee – I’m proposing that he adopt this endearing little ditty as his signature theme music :

Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur ; Happy kitty, sleepy kitty, purr, purr, purr

Any doubts left that Bond’s decision to retire was a wise one?

For the past year, the right has overindulged itself in all sorts of crazy fearmongering over the 2010 census. From fears that President Barack Obama’s appointee to run the census, Robert M. Groves, might use statistical sampling to nefariously ensure a more accurate count of poor people, to darkly warning that ACORN would be entirely in charge of conducting it, we’ve heard it all.

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), was famously allowed to use her celebrity and her ability to rile up the paranoid to inveigh against the 2010 count. At times, she’s vowed to flout the law and not participate, encouraging others to do the same. She’s stoked the same bonkers fears over ACORN, as well. She’s also darkly alluded to internment camps, because why not?

BACHMANN: If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the census bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations, at the request of President Roosevelt, and that’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I’m not saying that’s what the Administration is planning to do. But I am saying that private, personal information that was given to the census bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up.

Well, that was all a lot of fun back in the heady days of 2009 when it was important to get angry people out in public as often as possible to draw Hitler mustaches on health care reform. But now that the census is being conducted, there’s a worry that people might actually take all this craziness seriously, so Republicans are frantically trying to put their bipolar census anger-genie back into the bottle.

Yes indeedy. Blaine Luetkemeyer and Jo Ann Emerson are quoted in a Thursday Post-Dispatch story about the possibility that Missouri could well lose one of its nine seats to Minnesota. Emerson, whose district had some of the lowest rate of return of the forms in the state, understands–well, understands now, anyway–how serious the situation is:

“We’ve got a lot of work yet to do, obviously,” she said. “The number of congressional districts, the number of dollars coming into the state, depends on us getting the highest count possible.”

She lays the blame for undercounting in Southern Missouri on the difficulty of “‘pinpointing the number of people who live on farms that may be miles apart.'” True, such isolation doesn’t help the counting, but Lacy Clay isn’t letting her gloss over Republican attitudes that easily:

Clay remarked that the lack of participation also might be traced to anti-government sentiments that are especially strong in southern Missouri.

Like Emerson, Luetkemeyer is all dignified concern, now that Republican scare tactics might come home to roost:

“It would impact every single district and the amount of representation we have here in Washington,” he said. “We would lose an electoral vote, which would mean we have less impact on presidential elections.”

While it’s kind of fun watching those two try to stuff the anger-genie back in the bottle, it may be too late. Such adult reasoning bores the “make my veins pop” crowd. The fact is that Republicans have done some damage to this year’s census. But I’m struck by this injustice: Michele Bachmann, the loudest brayer of them all, didn’t get hoist on her own petard. No, no. Her district had a very high return rate–80 percent–of the forms. That could tip the scales so that Missouri ends up losing a seat, and Clay and Carnahan could conceivably end up running against each other. It could turn out that Bachmann would get off scot free after all her bleating about the census, and we could lose a good Dem in Congress.  If that happens, I will be further confirmed in my suspicion that there is no god.

(photo courtesy of Talking Points Memo)

“…BP, as you know, has said that they had to cover all the costs. We have told them, we have been in meetings with them, uh, that we take that to mean all…”

Oil, that is, black gold, Texas tea…

This morning I participated in a media conference call sponsored by the White House in which Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director, White House Domestic Policy Council; Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change; and Jeff Liebman, Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget spoke on legislation going to Congress that is targeted at strengthening the response to the BP oil spill and recovery efforts underway in the Gulf.

From the announcement of the conference call: “…The President has been clear that BP and any other responsible party will pay for all costs of stopping the spill in the Gulf and cleaning it up.  To deal more generally with the harms created by oil spills, the White House is sending legislation to Congress to toughen and update the law surrounding caps on damages.  The legislation also would provide important support for the fisheries industry and for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the spill.  Additionally, the proposal would give federal agencies additional authorities to respond to disasters like Deepwater….”

The transcript [The White House later provided a transcript which was the basis for the following literal transcript taken from my audio recording of the conference call]:

….Nick Shapiro, White House Press Office:  Thank you.  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks for getting on.  Today we’re gonna have a conference call with some senior administration officials.  The call is on the record. It will detail the legislation that’s going to Congress that’s targeted at strengthening the response to the BP oil spill and the recovery efforts already underway in the Gulf. On the call you’re going to hear from Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, and Jeff Liebman, Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

I will start with Carol, who is going to give an overview of the effort, why this legislation is important for accountability, and the tools that it provides.  Melody will then go into what we’re trying to accomplish for families.  And then, uh, Jeff will be available to talk about any additional authorities, uh, we’re seeking for agencies and why. Uh, so without, uh, further ado, uh, Ms. Browner.

Carol Browner:  Thank you. Uh, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster, which can seriously damage the economy and environment of our Gulf states jep, and jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who live throughout the Gulf region. Since the initial explosion on the drilling rig occurred the federal government has launched a coordinated and all hands on deck relentless response to this crisis. No one in the administration will rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to get back to their lives and livelihoods. BP will be paying for all costs of stopping the spill and cleaning it up.  And in fact, let me just quote Lamar McKay in his testimony, uh, just as recently as yesterday. He said, “Let me be really clear.  Liability, blame, fault, put it over here,” he said. “Our obligation is to deal with the spill, clean it up and make sure the impact of that spill are compensated, and we are going to do that.”

The spill has also made it very clear that updates are needed to current laws governing the liability that companies have for any damages, for any damage they cause while drilling and transporting oil. The Oil Pollution Act, for instance, was passed twenty years ago when offshore exploration and production in deepwater represented a small portion of our energy supply. To deal more generally with the harm created by oil spills as well as to toughen and update these laws the President is sending up to Congress a legislative package that will lift the caps on damage, increase the ceil, increase the ceiling on the amount of money that can be expended on recovery per incident from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and provide other authorities and funding to help the federal government respond swiftly to this crisis.

The legislation includes unemployment assistance, food and nutrition assistance, and help for those affected by the spill to find work, aid to fisheries and fishermen who have been severely impacted by the spill, funding to increase inspection of fish and seafood to protect the safety of the food we eat, and the establishment of one stop shops for those in need of aid. The bill also provides funding for additional inspections and enforcement of safety regulations on other offshore platforms and comprehensive evaluations of new policies, procedures and actions needed in light of this incident.

By passing this legislation we will clear statutory roadblocks and speed assistance to those impacted by the oil spill, as well as quickly mobilize assistance should the spill become worse and BP is not settling cam, claims quickly.

While we are asking for additional funds in some cases the federal government will not relent in pursuing full compensation for the expenses it has occurred and damage caused by this spill. And the legislation contains provisions to help us recoup those costs. Let me now turn it over to Melody Barnes….

…Nick Shapiro: I just briefly, before Melody starts, wanted to let all of you know that momentarily you’ll be getting a fact sheet that details some of this legislation.  So it should be coming to your in boxes shortly.

Melody.

Melody Barnes: Thank you so much, Carol.

Obviously of primary concern to the President is ensuring that we provide necessary assistance for families and individuals that are being impacted by the oil spill. And as Carol mentioned the legislation that’s being sent to Congress will ensure that the federal government can act, can act quickly to provide assistance in case the spill, spill gets worse or in case the responsible parties are not paying claims to affected individuals. We intend to do that through one, a series of one stop assistance centers, making sure that people can quickly and easily get access to the kinds of resources that I’m about to mention, and to also ensure that there’s no wrong door, that people, um, won’t be given the runaround in their effort to get assistance in their time of need.

We’re going to provide several different forms of, of re, of assistance in the legislation that’s being sent forward, the first being oil spill unemployment assistance.  Um, this is modeled after disaster unemployment assistance.  Um, it would be triggered in this case in the result of a spill of national significance. It will provide up to twenty-six weeks of assistance to those who are affected, but we are doing this in a way that those who can’t qualify for regular unemployment insurance will be able to, uh, be eligible. So, for example, those who are self employed, as many fishermen are, or those who, uh, may not have worked the requisite number of hours, other forms of eligibility under normal unemployment insurance assistance. Um, the benefit levels will be determined by state law.

Another form of assistance that we are going to include in the legislation is nutrition assistance. This is predicated on the SNAP program, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. And we, again, are providing this in the case of a
spill of national significance, just like the unemployment insurance assistance. Um, but in this case our goal is to make sure that people can access these resources much more quickly than those normally, uh, can acc, be accessed under SNAP, the normal SNAP program. So there are streamlined certification processes and also fewer eligibility factors and reduced procedural in, uh, requirements. The benefits will be provided in the same way that normal SNAP benefits are provided,through the electronic benefits transfer card.

Um, we also are including here a provision that enables the Department of Agriculture to provide food directly to states and distribute that food to those who are in need.

And finally, employment assistance, and we’re doing this by expanding the capacity of our Workforce Investment Act training and employment programs, so the local one stop centers. Um, and we’re doing this obviously at the state and local level by providing funding assistance to localities, um, and ensuring that we can provide needed training, um, and assistance to unemployed workers, again, fishermen and others who are out of work as a result of the oil spill, um, and making sure those, that those who have been laid off get the kind of training and increased occupational skills that they may need during this period of time.

Nick Shapiro: Thank you Melody.

Jeff Liebman: Um, nearly all of the costs that federal agencies are going to incur as a result of the spill will get charged to the responsible, uh, party, and this legislation, legislative proposal, uh, contains additional provisions to make sure, uh, that any additional costs,uh, um, that are incurred because of the legislation gets, uh, passed on to the responsible party. Um, it also, uh,to make sure that agencies have the funds they, they need to do some activities immediately, uh, it, it, uh, provides some funding, uh, to agencies that, um, need, need, uh, to act, uh, in response to the, uh, spill.  This includes, um, uh, some funding for the FDA to increase their inspections um, of, of fish, uh, to make sure that the fish, uh,  American consumers are eating, uh, is safe. Uh, it includes, uh, funding for, uh, Interior Department, for MMS, uh, to do increased inspections of all of, uh, the oil, uh, drilling facilities, uh, that they, uh, monitor. It includes, uh, some extra funding for the EPA to do, um, some additional studies of the environmental impact, um, of, of the spill.

Um, but I want to emphasize that, that, um,  most, if not, uh, the, and certainly the majority of the additional costs that are, um, would come out of this legislation will get charged to the responsible party and, and the legislation specifically, um, uh, makes clear that that is the, the case.

Nick Shapiro: Thank you everyone. Uh, now we’re gonna have time to take a few questions….

….Question: Good morning, uh, everyone.  When you say lifting the cap on damages, are you talking about retroactively increasing BP’s liability or is this for future incidents lifting the cap?

Carol Browner: Uh,yes, we are updating the statute, uh, to address all situations and, yes, we are lifting, uh, the cap retroactively.

Question: Is there a, is there an ex post facto problem in doing that?

Carol Browner: Uh, no, we do not believe so because what we are doing is updating the statute and it covers all companies.

Question: Okay, thanks….

….Question: Uh, could I ask if you’ve spoken to BP?  And BP swore up and down yesterday that they’d pay everybody everything. Uh, have, have, what exactly are you doing that would ensure that that they do that?

Carol Browner: Uh, BP, as you know, has said that they had to cover all the costs. We have told them, we have been in meetings with them, uh, that we take that to mean all. In the meantime, though, we are updating, uh, this, uh, statute as a matter of policy, as well as making, uh, sure that their, uh, commitment, the commitment by the company, uh, that they will be held to it.

Question: Thank you….

….Question: …the others, could you give us, uh, uh, an idea in the timing you expect on this, in the logistics? It will go up to the Hill today presumably. How long will it take to get passed and what does it need to go through?

Jeff Liebman: We hope to get this passed as soon as possible. There are a number of vehicles, uh, moving in this work period, uh, and we hope to work with Congress to get it done in the next few weeks.

Question: So you expect in the next few weeks that it will get passed. Have you had any feedback already from lawmakers that indicate support or any issues that they’re, that they’re concerned about?

Jeff Liebman: This needs passing as soon as possible so that we can get, uh, the tools in place to take care of the folks in the Gulf.

Question: Yeah, clearly, you want it as soon as possible, but my question is, what kind of feedback have you gotten from lawmakers? Are there any, there anything in particular that they like or that they object to that you expect to be hurdles?

Carol Browner: Uh, so, yes, the Hill has been notified that this legislation will be coming up shortly. Um, as you’re probably aware there are a number of bills that have already been introduced in both the House and the Senate, so the folks are actively engaged, hearings are underway. And we’re going to do everything in our power to move this as quickly as possible.

Question: Great, thanks, Carol….

….Question: Hi, thank you all for taking my question. Obviously, you all have been tracking this very closely. Do we have any sense of what the actual, uh, economic damages are?  Any range yet? And, and if not when can we expect such, such a figure?

Jeff Liebman: We’re setting it as closely as we can, but it, but, frankly, it’s changing very quickly and, and, uh, it varies across the states. But we don’t have an accurate number.

Question: And can I just ask one small follow-up? Why is there no, um, exact figure, just looking at the fact sheet, in the legislation for, you know, what, what size or, excuse me, how high do you want the, the ceiling to be raised on, on the damages that the, uh, government can collect?

Carol Browner: This is Carol Browner. We think it’s important to work with Congress on determining what that number will be. As you know, there are some bills that have been introduced, but we will be working with them to determine what the right number is.

Question: Thank you very much….

….Question: Uh, yes, I was wondering if this is going to include, um, a per barrel tax, uh, increase, uh, to go toward this, uh, this recovery [inaudible] fund?  Would, would, are you guys calling for that, too, or is this, um, does this not include that?

Jeff Liebman: The legislation calls for a one cent per barrel increase in the tax, uh, both from, uh, eight cents to nine cents immediately, and then from nine cents to ten cents when it’s currently scheduled to go from eight to nine, uh, in twenty seventeen….

….Question: Uh, you said you want to work with Congress to set a liability cap. Some of the legislation proposed already is ten billion. Uh, is that sort of the ballpark that you guys, are, are expecting? And can you give me sort of a total figure of the cost of this bill, and would all that be paid by BP?

Jeff Liebman: The total, uh, new discretionary spending in this bill is a hundred and eighteen, uh, million dollars. We expect that the overall majority of that, uh, would end up being reimbursed by BP.

Question: And on the liability cap?

Nick Shapiro: We’re going to work with Congress on that.

Question: {inaudible] As far as, do, do you think the ten billion dollars that’s been oppose, proposed by Congress as a cap already is a ballpark that you guys are looking at?

Nick Shapiro:  We’re going to work with Congress on it.  Don’t h
ave a ballparks for you….

….Question: Hi, everybody. Yeah, I was gonna ask about the retroactive nature of this, but that’s already been asked. So I wonder if anyone could comment on the, um, the offshore drilling, uh, provision of the climate bill that’s gonna be introduced today by, uh, Senators Kerry and Lieberman.  Is that something that the, uh, White House supports?

Carol Browner:  Hi, this is Carol Browner. We applaud Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their tireless work in, in drafting this legislation. We think this is an important step forward. We continue to believe, the President believes, that comprehensive energy reform is crucial. Uh, we need a bill that will help us, uh, break our dependence on fossil fuels, um, create clean energy jobs, and put a cap on greenhouse, uh, gas emissions. We have seen portions of the bill, we have not seen the entire bill. We will be reviewing it in the coming days and will continue to work, uh, in, in, the Senate to secure passage of the comprehensive legislation….

….Question: Yes, hello, two questions.  One involves this one hundred eighteen million dollars in discretionary spending you believe this, this legislation would encompass, the majority to be reimbursed by BP. Is this the kind of discretionary spending that would, you expect one hundred and eighteen million each year? Is it a repeated sort of funding situation? And the other question is, uh, going a little bit further, uh, on what was just asked, do you guys, are you able to state whether you support, uh, the legislation under Kerry-Lieberman that would allow states to ban oil drilling within seventy miles off their coast?

Jeff Liebman: The one hundred and eighteen million is one time.

Carol Browner: Again we’re gonna, uh, be looking at the, uh, Kerry-Lieberman, uh, legislation. Uh, you know, obviously, uh, in light of the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, uh, this legislation, the debate around offshore drilling is, is going to be a significant one, and so we want to take a look at it.  And then we’ll be working, uh, with the Senate, uh, to see how best to proceed….

….Question: Good morning, everybody.  Could you talk a little bit about the FDA seafood inspections? I wonder how worried Americans should be about seafood coming from the Gulf, and whether the increased inspections will be soon enough and increased enough to comprehensively make sure that no bad seafood is getting into the food system.

Nick Shapiro: That’s probably best answered by the daily press conference happening at the, down at the JIC every day. They’ve done a lot on the food safety and know, these folks are here to talk about the legislation.

Question: Well, but the legislation talks about increasing, uh, money so that FDA can do more inspections, and I just wonder whether the increase will be enough to be really sort of a comprehensive barrier against tainted seafood.

Melody Barnes: Well, obviously in addition to the concerns that the President has to make sure that the families working in the Gulf are taken care of, we want to make sure that those who are eating, um, and eating out of our, our food chain and our food supply are also equally protected. So the FDA will continue to act vigilantly. We are providing additional resources to make sure that they are able to do so, and we will continue to do that as we monitor the situation very carefully.

Carol Browner: And, and at this point, there’s all of the safeguards are in place in terms of the fish, the appropriate fish closures, the appropriate inspections.  And so we have no reason to think that seafood is not, uh, safe at this point. We have to remain vigilant and I think, again, as has been said, you can get a sort of a full outline of everything that’s happening, uh, right now to ensure, uh, that the food supply is safe….

….Question: …Um, now, the one hundred eighteen [million], that’s, uh, the total for the bill? And do you subtract the twenty nine million dollars that goes to the Interior Department for, uh, money outside?  And can you give us a break, you said the majority, but is that half is paid for by BP, or can you be more specific?

Jeff Liebman: Um, so the twenty-nine [million] for Interior is a component of the hundred and eighteen [million]. Um, to the extent that a component of the hundred and eighteen [million] is directly related to the current, uh, disaster, uh, we will be able to re, charge it to, to BP. There are some things, uh, for example, inspecting, um, other oil wells in other parts of the country that we’re, we’re going to be doing increased activity, that, uh, it’s unclear whether we’ll be able to get reimbursed from the responsible party, um, for that. And that’s why we need appropriations now to make sure we can do all the things, uh, we need to do.

Question: And how hard do you think it’s going to be to get reimbursed by BP if they’ve already paid claims to fishermen, for example, for their damages, than, you know, paying this nother fifteen million dollars for unemployment, or retraining? Is that gonna be a major battle?

Carol Browner: Well, first, first of all, we, we are going to, as I said earlier, we, we take BP at their word. They say they intend to pay for all costs. Um, and when we hear all, we take it to mean all. The, um, it’s obvious people aren’t allowed to double dip. Uh, you know, an individual can’t get reimbursed one place and then attempt to get reimbursed for the same economic impact somewhere else. Uh, but to the degree that we are using federal dollars to compensate individuals, we will claim that, uh, against BP….

….Question: Uh, thanks for doing the call. Uh, if I could just ask a little more about the legislation. Uh, you, you said the Hill has been notified. But have you run it by Republicans? Is this going to be done in like a pre-packaged way direct to the floor and out by Memorial Day?  Or does this need to go through committee and kind of get hashed out with amendments and things? And um, and who will introduce it? And as you, have you been told what committee or whatever it might go to?

Jeff Liebman: I think it’s too early to tell the exact legislative strategy, but we have in our notifications talked to people on both sides of the aisle.

Question: Have you got anything back from them? I mean, okay, we’ll look at it when you get here, or, yes, we’ll agree to that in, in principle or in detail?

Jeff Liebman: I think there is a, uh, wide understanding that there is a strong need right now both to make sure federal agencies have the capacity they need to respond to this, uh, event and to make sure that we provide, uh, the assistance that people in the Gulf need.

Nick Shapiro: We got time for, uh, two more….There’s no other questions?….

….Question: Yes,….the Mexican News Agency. Thank you for taking my question. I am wondering if you are considering an international dimension, specifically, if there’s any potential damage, uh, to Mexico? Where you had any kind of contact with the Mexican government to see if they can get some reimbursement in case there is evidence of damage to, to Mexican waters?

Nick Shapiro: …We have been in touch with the Mexican government, and I’d refer you over to the Coast Guard, who is working with State Department on any international, uh, needs or requests for assistance….

….Question: Hi, yeah, I’m just wondering if you can explain the differences between the various liabilities and the claim caps. In your fact sheet that you sent out, you said that the funds will be raised, the cap on the fund will be raised to one point five billion, the cap on the natural resources damage [inaudible] would be raised to seven hundred and fifty million. But then you said that the other liability claim cap you want to negotiate with Congress. Can you explain the difference of why you’ve left that final cap on negotiations [inaudible]?

Jeff Lie
bman: Um, the, the first sort of caps you described are on the overall resources, uh, in the existing trust fund. Um, what we’re trying to do is make sure that the Coast Guard and the other agencies responding, uh, can get access, uh, to the funds they need, uh, when they need them, rather than having to stop activities while they wait for, uh, appropriations. And so the move, lifting the cap from, one billion to one point five billion, and the component of that, uh, the, uh, is for natural resources, from five hundred [million] to seven fifty [million], is a part of that, uh, effort to make sure that the existing trust fund resources can be tapped, uh, as soon as they’re needed, uh, to respond to this, uh, spill. There’s a separate issue, uh, of what the allowable, uh, damages are for, um, the responsible party, and that’s the issue that we look forward to working with Congress on.

Nick Shapiro: All right. Uh, thank you all for participating in the call. And thank you, Melody, Carol, and Jeff for your time today. And I hope everyone has a great day….

One of the latest blasts from what former conservative pollitical operative David Brock termed the Republican noise machine concerns the ACLU’s John Adams Project which provides lawyers to detainees in Guantanamo. Yesterday Missouri Rep. Todd Akin (R-2nd), who seemingly has never encountered a rightwing smear that he doesn’t want to spread, rushed in to grab a megaphone in the service of the cause.

This time the sound and fury signifying nothing concerns the discovery of photographs of CIA torturer/interrogators in the cells of Guantanamo detainees.  The initial, legitimate concern was whether or not the identities of CIA operatives were illegally disclosed by lawyers from the John Adams Project.

In the aftermath of a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, which seems to have concluded that no laws were broken, the emphasis shifted to rightwing accusations that some of the DOJ investigators’ past associations may have biased their findings. As a consequence, a famously disinterested outside investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been brought in to review the findings. The upshot is that the situation is under control and proceeding according to the appropriate laws and regulations.

If I, a simple citizen with no congressional research staff or interns to help me investigate, can glean this fact from simply looking at newspaper reportage, why does our boy Todd feel the need to send a bombastic letter – signed by 47 Republican Representatives, including  Missouri’s Blaine Luetkemeyer and Sam Graves – to the DOJ:

It has come to our attention that the Justice Department is investigating a group of lawyers associated with the American Civil Liberties Union and self-identifying as the “John Adams Project”. We understand that these lawyers may  have intentionally revealed the identify of covert CIA operatives – in clear violation of federal law – to members of Al Queda currently held at Guantanamo Bay. If true, these individuals were assisting our sworn enemies – terrorists who have attached our nation and our allies repeatedly.

… In particular we urgently request that you provide a full accounting to Congress of any indiviudals formerly or currently working for the federal government who are connected to the John Adams Project.

Where to start with this self-important drivel?  Why kick up a ruckus at this relatively late date when most of the facts are right out there in the open? Perhaps Akin and pals are trying to gin up a witch hunt to keep the fringewing rabble amused?

Of course, as Emptywheel notes, there is more going on here than meets the eye. Scandal-mongering this issue is a way to hobble detainees’ lawyers’ efforts to mount a defense by making it impossible to call witnesses. It also serves the CIA’s desire to deflect attention from the question of its interrogation (i.e., torture) methods; and, finally, it has the potential to erode the  “DOJ’s prosecutorial independence such that it cannot try any torture cases … .”

The role of Todd Akin in this nasty little smear campaign should make Missourians very ashamed. It should also leave Mr. Akin, if he has any integrity at all, feeling at least a little troubled since he takes every opportunity he can find to sententiously proclaim his devotion to the constitution.  As a New York Times editorial writer put it:

It is not the first time that the right has tried to distract Americans from the real issues surrounding detention policy by attacking lawyers. …

If lawyers who take on controversial causes are demonized with impunity, it will be difficult for unpopular people to get legal representation – and constitutional rights that protect all Americans will be weakened. That is a high price to pay for scoring cheap political points.

Enough is enough.  The anti-women contingent in this state keep pushing us back into the hole we crawled out of in the 1960’s. I remember when I needed summer jobs during college and looked at the “Help Wanted – Female” column in the newspaper.  I remember thinking that a neighbor’s daughter who went to pharmacy school was a disgrace to the neighborhood.  What kind of girl would want a “man’s job”?  There was a time when I wouldn’t dream of going to a female doctor.    That kind of thinking doesn’t change easily.  It’s taken some of us 40 years to really believe that women are intelligent enough to make good decisions.  Now I choose women as my primary care physicians and support women running for political office.

My letter on this subject will be in the Post Dispatch tomorrow.  I’m really fed up with playing defense on women’s reproductive rights.

How in the world did we get to the point where a handful of radicals can

dictate to the citizens of Missouri what kind of birth control they can use?

These are the same people who don’t want the government interfering with their

health care decisions and scream “socialism” when we try to help our uninsured

neighbors. These are the same people who cut funding for mental health

services, early childhood education, and who kick severely disabled people out

of the only “home” they’ve ever known.

It’s not enough that they’ve made it almost impossible for a woman carrying a

fetus that dies in the last trimester to get an abortion. It’s not enough

that they scream “sinner” at young girls impregnated by rapists who hate the

thing the rapists left growing in their belly.

I doubt that most Missourians realize what nonsense passes for legislative

action in Jefferson City. They will find out when they need emergency

contraception and can’t buy it. One of the bills passed by the Missouri House

and now being rammed through the Senate would make it impossible for rural

women to buy the morning after pill because pharmacists can decide for

themselves which drugs they “believe” will cause an abortion. That could

apply to any prescription from a woman’s doctor.

We shouldn’t even have to be discussing this. Couples should be able to make

their reproductive decisions in private. Period.

When citizens cede their decision-making power to extremists, their rights

disappear one by one. We’d better celebrate the 50th anniversary of “the

pill” now because it may not be around much longer. And we’ll have no one to

blame but ourselves.

 

The vested and powerful interests in Jeff City could very well invalidate the 190,027 signatures gathered by volunteers for Missourians to Protect Dogs.  This is the puppy mill petition that would force the Dept. of Ag to do what it’s supposed to do – regulate those god-awful puppy mills.  We would rather see them eliminated altogether, but we know that’s impossible right now.  HJR 86 is on the “informal calendar” and can be voted on at any moment.  We have to let these bastards know they can’t just make our right of initiative petition disappear.  Call, fax, email and keep it up until 6 p.m. Friday.   Here is the suggested message, but you might have your own choice words for these creeps.

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose H.J.R. 86 and legislation with similar wording, which attempt to interfere with Missouri citizens’ right to petition the government on abusive practices, such as the puppy mill ballot initiative now circulating. These bills are unfair and undemocratic, and are so broad they could even protect animal abusers.  

There are efforts underway now to amend H.J.R. 86 and one of the measures in the House to require a super-majority vote on ballot measures relating to animal protection.  Please do not fall for this last minute change, which does not improve the fundamentally bad public policy that these bills represent.

This legislation is a cynical and underhanded attempt to take away the rights of Missouri citizens. Voters overwhelmingly banned cockfighting in 1998, and are now circulating a petition to prevent cruelty at large-scale puppy mills. The right of citizens to petition for new laws is guaranteed by the Missouri Constitution, and lawmakers should not try to interfere with a ballot measure already in progress.

H.J.R. 86, H.B. 1747, S.B. 848, and S.B. 795 would also invest more power in the courts and subject the state to expensive lawsuits from animal abusers who want to overturn anti-cruelty laws. We shouldn’t waste our tax dollars and take away the rights of Missouri voters just to protect puppy mills and animal abusers.

Please oppose these bills and any other bill with similar language.

The stenographer in Sunday’s Kansas City Star:

Best ethics bill in the universe? How spacey

….So the bill foundered. Frustrated, Democrats went to their trick bag and pulled out a little-used maneuver to force the bill out of committee without a vote and directly onto the House calendar.

Republicans, who are in the majority, didn’t like that. And that led to last week’s sudden flurry of activity around the bill by Republicans who, some said, were eager to punish Democrats for playing tricks with the bill….

Well, okay, but you neglected to mention this from Speaker Ron Richard (r) on January 6, 2010:

….Question:  Senator Shields has proposed a ban on contributions from lobbyists during the session. Is that something that you would support?

Speaker Richard: I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out.

Question: What is the advantage [inaudible] the ethics proposals [inaudible]?

Speaker Richard: Uh, I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there’ll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we’ll have an open dialog and, uh, we’ll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis….

“…I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out…”

Question: Why is it a problem for the republican majority and a sign of Democratic Party partisanship to old media if there’s discharge petition on a bill from a “bipartisan” committee which Speaker Richard said he would support? Just asking.

“…I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there’ll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we’ll have an open dialog and, uh, we’ll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis…” Well, that didn’t go very well.

Not well at all:

….Question: Was any Democrat allowed to actually get up and speak on this bill (inaudible)?

Representative LeVota: No, no Democrat was allowed to speak on heir own behalf or offer any of the amendments to make the bill better…

And how did the republican bill look to the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal?:

5/10/2010 1:12:00 PM

Ethics bill looks more political than ethical

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

Editor

…As too often is the case with what should be a straightforward piece of needed legislation, the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government.

And how did Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) – in the 121st Legislative District, representing Warrensburg – vote on this bill?:

…On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 087

Hoskins 121

[emphasis added]

“…the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government…”

Let’s take a look at some of the provisions in the actual bill, House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 844 [pdf]:

….21.860. There is established a joint committee of the general assembly to be known as the “Joint Committee on Ballot Statements”….

Uh, isn’t that the job of the Secretary of State right now?

….26.016. In the case of any vacancy for any cause in the office of lieutenant governor, the governor shall immediately fill such vacancy by special election as provided in section….

….27.015. In the case of any vacancy for any cause in the office of attorney general, the governor shall immediately appoint an acting attorney general to fill such vacancy until the vacancy is filled by special election….

….28.190. In case of death, resignation, removal from office, impeachment, or vacancy from any cause in the office of secretary of state, the governor shall immediately [appoint a qualified person to] fill such vacancy by special election….

[emphasis in original]

And there are similar provisions for State Auditor and State Treasurer.

Does anyone have an idea what a statewide special election would cost? Just asking.

….105.009. 1. Before taking office and once every two years thereafter, all state elected officials, state executive branch managerial staff, all department directors, and all members, officers, and leadership staff of the house of representatives and senate shall be subject to chemical testing of their blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of the blood. The costs of such testing shall be paid by such official, director, officer, member, or staff member….

If I recall correctly, this one was taken out on the floor. I could be wrong about that. The point is, the republican majority crammed a lot of stuff into a Senate bill and then didn’t allow the Democratic minority to debate it.

….(5) “Legislative lobbyist”, any natural person who acts for the purpose of attempting to influence the taking, passage, amendment, delay or defeat of any official action on any bill, resolution, amendment, nomination, appointment, report or any other action or any other matter pending or proposed in a legislative committee in either house of the general assembly, or in any matter which may be the subject of action by the general assembly and in connection with such activity, meets the requirements of any one or more of the following:…

…(d) Attempts to influence any elected official other than an elected official who represents the legislative district where the person resides. This paragraph shall not be construed to apply to any person who is testifying before any legislative, executive, or

128 administrative committee; or….

[emphasis in original]

That reads to me if you contact anyone other than your specific representative you’re considered a “legislative lobbysist”. So, if a teacher wants to talk to the chair of an education committee about a bill on education and that chair is not their representative, the teacher is a lobbyist under the bill? That ain’t right.

…105.479. No member of the general assembly, statewide official, or any person acting at the request of a member or statewide official or on the member’s or statewide official’s behalf, shall accept or receive any cumulative expenditures from a lobbyist in excess of two thousand five hundred dollars…

…Any item having a value of less than ten dollars shall not be included in the cumulative determination…

A $2,5000.00 limit on gifts from lobbyists. That’s nice to know.

“…Any item having a value of less than ten dollars shall not be included in the cumulative d
etermination…” Unlimited free lunches!

…115.427. 1 [Before receiving a ballot, voters] Persons seeking to vote in a public election shall establish their identity and eligibility to vote at the polling place by presenting a form of personal identification to election officials. [“Personal identification” shall mean only] No form of personal identification other than the forms listed in this section shall be accepted to establish a voter’s qualifications to vote….

[emphasis in original]

Ah, a voter turnout suppression clause.

…Section 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where state or federal law requires elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed….

[emphasis in original]

Ah, employee free choice is not a priority of the republican majority. And how did Representative Mike McGhee (r-122) vote on this bill?:

On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 087

McGhee

You think organized labor is aware of this?

…Section 4. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where mandatory dues are collected for membership in any labor organization as defined in section 130.111, a member of such organization shall be entitled to designate that such member’s dues shall not be used for any political activity whatsoever, including but not limited to advocating for the election of an individual candidate for public office or the promotion of a ballot measure. The designation opting out of the use of dues for political activities shall be clearly and conspicuously placed on the requisite card or form for the payment of dues, or shall be provided as a separate document to each member before payment of such member’s dues….

How come there’s no provision requiring corporations to allow stockholders to opt out in the same fashion? Just asking.

Oh, brother, there’s even tenther drivel in the bill:

…Section 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 27.060 or any other provision to the contrary, the governor, lieutenant governor, president pro tempore of the senate, speaker of the house, and speaker pro tempore of the house may institute, in the name and on the behalf of the state, any proceeding in law or in equity requisite or necessary to protect the natural or constitutional rights of persons within the state, and may appear or defend in any proceeding or tribunal the natural or constitutional rights of such persons….

And that, folks, is the republican majority in the Missouri General Assembly at work.

Last week  Rep. Roy Blunt, in his role as a member of the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, which has oversight of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), stood up for the interests of the big communications giants like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T – but to hear him tell it in his press release, he is going to the wall to fight against the “government takeover of the Internet”:

Just like last fall, this federal agency [i.e., the FCC] is trying to side-step our elected representatives in Congress. Once again, this unelected bureaucracy is ruling on an issue that will have a huge impact on the economy and the free flow of information throughout Missouri and across the country. Missourians don’t want more federal regulation of the Internet, they want transparency and freedom to innovate.

What Blunt is talking about is the move by the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, to blunt the effect of the recent Appeals Court ruling, Comcast v. FCC , which found that the FCC lacked the authority to regulate broadband access as long as it is classified as an information service. The FCC does, however, have the authority to reclassify broadband access services as telecommunications services which it can legally regulate, and which Chairman Genachowski has decided to do, although in a very limited fashion.

This relatively narrow exercise of its authority will, nevertheless, permit the FCC to insure basic privacy for Internet users; require that Internet Service providers (ISPs) cannot discriminate in providing access to content that they dislike (such as political blogs, for instance); and require transparency from ISPs about the services they provide and their costs. It will also clear away obstacles that stood in the way of President Obama’s critical National Broadband Plan. Consequently, those of us who think that the Internet is too important to freedom of expression to be turned over to greedy telecoms who are only concerned abut their bottom line are delighted with this turn of events.

That Roy Blunt has chosen to characterize an unexceptional exercise of the FCC’s allocated powers as a “big-government” power grab on the part of an “unelected” official is proof enough that he and the corporate honchos who pay him have no real arguments against net neutrality. But never fear, the use of emotionally loaded doublespeak has worked well with the always volatile members of Blunt’s constituency – I doubt that we will find him worrying overmuch about the accuracy and truthfulness of his rhetoric anytime soon. How else could a man whose record of corruption led Public Citizen’s Congress Watch to to label him “unfit to lead” now try to pass himself off as a defender of the little guy?  

In spite of Chairman Genachowski’s recent announcement, the debate is not yet over. Corporate proxies like Blunt will do their best to spread industry misrepresentations while posturing as high-minded saviors of the Internet. I can assure you that Blunt’s press release was only one of the opening salvos. So, if you are not clear about what’s at stake, take a look at this video that briefly explains basic Net Neutrality:

 

Last month, the PACE legislation–that superb plan for helping homeowners pay for energy efficiency upgrades at no cost to the state–moved toward passage. But at a price. It was folded into HB 1871, which included among its provisions a dirty little secret: a policy to allow companies to divulge illegal emissions or spills to the Dept of Natural Resources and thereby keep the emission or spill secret from the public unless it poses a danger to human health or the environment.

Now, with the end of the legislative session coming at 6:00 p.m. this Friday, HB 1871, which passed in the House, is out of the Commerce Committee in the Senate, and all the better for its stay in committee. Because Sen Brad Lager, R-Savannah, stripped the dirty little secret out of the bill in hopes of improving its chances of passing.

But with the days dwindling to hours left in the session, will Majority Floor Leader Engler find time for the bill on the calendar? Maybe he would, if absolutely everybody loved it and it would take five minutes to pass it. But Sen. Ridgeway, R-Smithfield, opposed the idea in committee. She seems to think that if the wrong people were appointed to the finance boards that oversee the legislation, they might do damage to seniors who applied for the loans by creating liens against their homes and causing them to lose their property.

Ridgeway’s opposition might mean a lot of time spent in discussion, and time is a precious commodity this week. And besides, even if the Senate took it up and passed it, the bill differs from the House version; therefore, a conference committee would have to agree on a compromise version and then both chambers would have to vote on the final version. That’s a lot of complications. So who knows what Engler will do? It’s frustrating to see the fate of such a fine idea hanging in the balance.