Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 2 (August 15, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 3 (August 15, 2010)

The fourth and final part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: I feel like when you vote for health care making requirements for individuals, in this country we still [inaudible] individual freedom, the stimulus bill which is gonna cost so much money to my children and grandchildren, and financial reform, we all know has secret provisions in it and when I hear people like Nancy Pelosi and Chris Dodd say, you won’t know what’s in it ’til we vote for it, why do you vote for those things that are killing America’s freedoms?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Okay, there are three, you asked about what, health care, the stimulus, and financial reg?

Question: Yeah, but I can go on.

Senator McCaskill: Okay.

Question: [inaudible] other examples.

Senator McCaskill: Well, um, I , I will tell you on the stimulus, um. [crosstalk]

Question: You said, Claire, if I can quote you, you said, if it wasn’t about jobs. And let me repeat, if it’s not about jobs we should not be doing it.

Senator McCaskill: Yep.

Question: Those are your exact words. And, it’s not about jobs I don’t believe…

…Senator McCaskill: Well, let me, let me tell you what the stimulus did and is doing. Just about every orange cone you see in Missouri is stimulus money. Now I know those people working out there on those road projects would say those are jobs. The money that is being spent in the State of Missouri is stimulus money for all the road projects right now. The money that went to Jeff City that kept them from having to cut a total of three billion more than they’ve cut from the state budget over the last two years, that was stimulus money. Now I guarantee you, there’s a school superintendent that’s here, if those cuts would have gone through she would have lost teachers. Those are jobs. Those teachers would be out of work. Uh, they weren’t put out of work because of the stimulus.  Of that state stabilization money was one third of it – going straight to state governments to decide how they needed to spend to keep there from being an economic disaster within each and every state. Almost a third of it was tax cuts. Those tax cuts are still coming out of people’s, uh, they’re still getting more money in their paychecks as we speak. [crosstalk]

Question: If you work.

Senator McCaskill: If you work. That’s exactly right. If you have a job, any kind of job, you don’t have to be rich. You can have any kind of working man job, working woman job and you’re getting less money taken out of your paycheck right now. That was all [inaudible]. And then we’ve got high speed rail money and I think for this community and communities near here they understand what high speed rail could do for Missouri as it relates to the speed and the efficacy of train transportation between Kansas City and St. Louis. Being able to clear those lines so our freight trains move more easily – that includes commerce. That’s money, thirty-one million in Missouri right [inaudible crosstalk] there.

Question: But what about all the wasted things that, that are constantly shown on the Internet about, you know, [inaudible] crossings and, and, you know [inaudible][crosstalk].

Senator McCaskill: Well, I’m not aware, I, I, do I think that there are mistakes made with how federal money spent? I spend a great deal of my time trying to focus on that. I can’t argue with you that there are, every single dime is spent appropriately. I will tell you that most economists believed at the time that our country was teetering and that stimulative spending, which is classic economic one-oh-one, was necessary by the government. And that’s why I voted for it. Because I believed it was gonna help us in the recovery. And if you look at the job numbers we lost three million jobs the last six months of the Bush administration and another three million jobs the first three months of the Obama administration. That has stopped. We cauterized that wound. [applause] It is not, we [inaudible] losing jobs like that now. [applause] And I believe the stimulus helped with that. [applause]

Question: We continue to lose jobs, and [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: No. We’re gaining jobs.

Question: We continue to have four hundred fifty thousand new unemployment claims every week.

Senator McCaskill: We [inaudible crosstalk], there’s no question unemployment is still a major issue in this country. But we are net creating jobs now every month. It’s not a huge number, but we’re not losing seven hundred thousand a month like we were at the end of two thousand and eight and the beginning of two thousand nine. That was the crises we were trying to address.  I was making a good faith attempt to do what I thought, and here’s the interesting thing about this, you’re kind of darned if you do and darned if you don’t. Because when I run into people all the time they say, you know, you guys need to quite spending, what are you gonna do about jobs? You guys need to quite spending. What are you gonna do about jobs? Well, there’s only so much the government can and should do. I think what we did was the appropriate amount. I don’t think we can continue to do major stimulus spending going forward. Because there’s a point that you’ve gotta pivot and really begin to fasten down the ends in terms of how much spending’s going on. That’s why capping the growth, the amendment I’m supporting makes sense right now. We’re not cutting, because if you cut right now it could send us into another tailspin economically. But capping the growth is a reasonable approach in terms of the economics of it to do it. I think I talked about health care. And what was the final one?

Question: Financial reform.

Senator McCaskill: Financial reform. Um, it is a public bill. It is available for anybody to read. It exempts the community banks. There are only, the big national banks and two other banks in Missouri that are impacted by the new regulations, UMB and Commerce, because they’re over ten billion. And I gotta tell you the truth, I don’t ever want there to be another time where I have to cast a vote to put your money to save a major financial institution in order to save the financial health of this country. I don’t ever want to have to do that again. And this bill allows the government to go in like they do for other, like you do in a bankruptcy, like you do with a bank. If the local bank down here was about to go under the federal government can come in through the FDIC, they can make sure all the a, the deposits are protected, they can shut down the bank for one afternoon, a
nd reopen the bank on Monday [inaudible crosstalk], and by reorganizing the finances and it’s almost like a structured bankruptcy type process. We didn’t have the authority to do that with these giant mortgage bankers, these investment bankers. We couldn’t do that with Goldman-Sachs or AIG [crosstalk].

Question: [inaudible] that with Fannie or Freddie?

Senator McCaskill: You know what? Fannie and Freddie [inaudible], there will be, the main reason more wasn’t done with Fannie and Freddie when we did financial reg was the real estate community said, please don’t shut off Fannie and Freddie right now as we’re in the midst of this recovery. We are busy trying to make sure that our home prices don’t fall off the cliff, that we can still sell, and that is still a very needed source of funding for many banks loans, good bank loans, in this country, those guarantees. So, um, the, I mean, I know that, that, uh, some stations on the Internet, it’s all about Fannie and Freddie and financial reg was bad. But I honestly believe that we have taken a major step to keep the government from ever having to do that again.

Question: And there are bad things in it and I think you’re aware of that.

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, there, I’m, I, I, can’t say there are bad things in it. I’m not saying that any bill’s perfect [redacted] but I think it was the right thing to do to prevent bailouts in the future [applause] and I gotta [inaudible] now.

[….]

Question: I was wondering on the illegal immigration you keep saying that there’s no money in that for illegals. How do you prevent that when an illegal shows up at a hospital? [inaudible] Any politician says, we’re not paying and [inaudible] If they go to [inaudible] so the hospital is [inaudible] [crosstalk].

Senator McCaskill: It depends. He wants to know what happens to an illegal immigrant when he, when he goes to the hospital. It depends on what the present with. Honestly, if it’s life threatening I think most hospitals probably take in any human being that shows up that could die. [inaudible crosstalk] But [crosstalk]…

Question: But we still pay.

Senator McCaskill: I, I, there’s no question about that. And, but I’m not sure we’re ready in America to say that we need to let people die in emergency rooms.

Question: I agree absolutely.

Senator McCaskill: Yeah.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I will tell you that, uh, I have some personal experience with, uh, immigrant communities that, I mean, if you, there’s a priest up in St. Louis that’s very proud at, at, uh, St. Louis University, a Jesuit university in St. Louis, Father Biondi has just opened a clinic where they are trying to provide pro bono care for illegals that are in the St. Louis area because they can’t get health care anywhere else. And he’s doing it through donations at his church and throughout the St. Louis University community. That kinds of stuff goes on for, for medical care, um, but there’s no question there’s a price that the government pays, uh, for illegal immigrants that are in this country. [inaudible crosstalk] Direct and indirect. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, oh, I think what the reason it says that is people were saying that in the health care bill we didn’t prohibit illegal immigrants from getting the benefits of the health care bill. And that is strictly prohibited. They cannot buy insurance on the exchange. They cannot get subsidies to help them buy insurance on the exchange. That’s what that’s referring to, sir, it’s not, it’s not saying that somebody who presents dying at a, at a hospital is now gonna be told go die on the curb. It’s saying that within the provisions of the health care bill it strictly prohibit giving any government benefits [inaudible crosstalk] to the illegal immigrants.

Question: One other thing they, that I also hear talks about, uh, mainly the cost of [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Uh, huh.

Question:…Starting to watch TV, and it says people are getting injuries to [inaudible].

Senator McCaskill: And that will happen for another couple of years. That will happen because the, the, the exchanges don’t go into place until twenty-fourteen. So, now, what will begin to happen next year, this is good news. We’re gonna have medical loss ratios that they have to begin reporting on next year. So, insurance companies have been hiring a lot of people to figure out ways to deny your claim. They make more money the more claims they deny. They, they’re now gonna have to report those expenses, how much of every dollar they collect from their premium holders, from their insureds. And they’re gonna have to report how much of every dollar they spend on health care versus how many people did they deny health care, their advertising, or salaries. And if they spend more than eighty-five, eighty-five cents, they spend more than fifteen cents of every dollar on something other than health care they gotta rebate to their insureds, not to the government. It goes back to their policy holders.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I don’t think it’s realistic to think we’re gonna have a good handle on changing the cost curve until provisions of the bill come into effect. So it is gonna take a few years. And yes, it’s gonna be hard for all of you who don’t like the bill, it’s gonna give you a lot of righteous indignation the next couple of years ’cause you’re gonna say, well look, we’re not any better off. But for a lot of people, for kids who can stay on your insurance policies longer, for seniors who are gonna get help with the donut hole, for small businesses that are gonna get, for people who have preexisting conditions, there’s a program now in Missouri they can sign up for. There are some good things that’ll happen the next two years, but in terms of really getting a handle on the costs I’m the first to admit that’s not gonna happen in the next two years.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, the, his [crosstalk]…

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I think the frustrating part for me, sir, I understand what you’re saying, but I run into people all the time that have the wrong information about what is and isn’t in the bill. All the time. And I had a whole bunch of people say to me, you know, I’m not really sure what’s in it, but I just figure it’s better to vote no against it than anything else because if the government’s involved it’s probably a bad idea. So there’s some of that out there, too, in fairness. I mean, I bet if I started quizzing you on all of the things that are in the bill I think you’d probably wouldn’t get a hundred percent on the quiz.

Question: I don’t think there’s anybody in America who’d get a hundred percent on that quiz. [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I don’t [inaudible] a hundred percent, but I think I’d get, I’d be put in B plus territory. I’m pretty sure I would.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: But that’s my job. I’m supposed to know it, right?

Question: Right.

Senator McCaskill: Thank you guys very, very much for being here. [applause] [inaudible] Thank you very much.

Representative Jill Schupp (D) came to Warrensburg late this afternoon to accompany Courtney Cole (D), the Democratic Party candidate in the 121st Legislative District, going door to door. We had an opportunity to speak with Representative Schupp about the past legislative session, the needs for the future in the General Assembly, and Courtney Cole before they embarked to knock on doors and talk to voters.

Representative Jill Schupp (D) and Courtney Cole (D) going door to door in Warrensburg on behalf of Courtney’s campaign for the 121st Legislative District seat.

Show Me Progress: When you dealt with the, just this legislative session this, this past year, uh, what have been some of the, uh, frustrating things, positive things that you encountered?

Representative Jill Schupp (D): Well, some of the frustrating things include the fact that we as a legislature spent a lot of time on, uh, resolutions. Things that really at the end of the day don’t have an impact, they have no legislative teeth, they, in essence, have no meaning. So the party in charge, the majority party, took us through an agenda that at the end of the day doesn’t do much to help the people in the State of Missouri.

SMP: Did that, did that get in the way of business, the important business that needed to be done?

Representative Schupp: Well, absolutely it did. It takes up time on the floor, it takes up people’s energy, and it kept us away from things that are really critical, particularly now, like job creation and economic development. And I don’t think the legislature did a great job on those things this year…

In the midst of the activities involved in sending out walk teams volunteers at headquarters place signs in the windows.

Representative Jill Schupp (D) at the Johnson County Democratic Committee headquarters.

…SMP: Well, we had heard that they spent very little time on, on the job creation legislation that was, was put forward.

Representative Schupp: That’s exactly right. You know, there are only so many legislative hours available between January and May. And when you spend time on things that don’t matter or things like a, um, what I would call a scam ethics bill, what you’re doing is taking valuable resources, valuable time away from the people of this state and from what they deserve in terms of what the legislature needs to accomplish on their behalf.

SMP: And ultimately the Governor had to call a special session to deal with some of that and that ended up costing the state money.

Representative Schupp: It does cost the state more money and it’s unfortunate that we needed to do that. And, you know, it’s, it all gets back to setting the agenda, what the agenda is and what the hope the outcome will be, particularly in these difficult economic times. We need to be focused on jobs, on education, on making sure that our limited resources are used well. You need people like, like Courtney Cole who’s gonna come in and say, I’m a teacher, I know how to get to the heart of the issues, I know how to look at these things, I know how to condense them, I know how to look creatively in terms of what we as a state need to do to move us forward. And she’s gonna bring forward some real legislation as opposed to some of the sham and scam things that have gone on in the past. And I believe, seeing Courtney and knowing Courtney, she’s gonna use our time well, help us use our time well in the legislative session.

[….]

SMP: So, in general terms, what does the General Assembly need to address in the coming session?

Representative Schupp: Well, the General Assembly, you know, one of the difficulties that we have now in the state and across the country is our budget situation. We need to make sure that we are tightening our belts, finding dollars wherever we can, to insure that the people of Missouri are taken care of, but that the budget remains intact and balanced and we will do whatever we need to do that. Again, we need creative voices and new ideas. So, so top job is make sure that, that we stay within our, within the means that we have.  And second of all, and next in line, and tying into that is job creation. There is no question that there are way too many people in our state out of work. We need to support and help find jobs. And whether those are jobs that tie into environmental issues, to health care issues, to, um, training, and, you know, we go back again to Courtney who works in the education environment.  Both she and her husband, she’s a high school teacher, he’s a college professor. Um, educators are helping craft our future by making sure that our kids graduate with good education, they’re smart, the come up with new ideas, they’re entrepreneurs. Courtney also has a background in small business. And what we know from all the research is that small business is the way to build an economy again and the way to get people back to work, one small business at a time. So, in the state to, to live within our means we’re gonna be able to do that through job creation and through education. And I think Courtney is a great person to come forward and help us figure out ways to solve the issues that we, that we face.

SMP: Great. Well, thank you very much for your time.

Representative Schupp: Thank you so much…

Getting the walk teams ready to go door to door…

I haven’t had time to take a careful look at the “jobs” plan Roy Blunt unveiled yesterday. At a cursory glance, it seems like the same recipe that cost us 9 million jobs in the worst recession since the 1930s: gut regulation, cut taxes for the wealthy, roll back health care reform and let costs escalate, etc. Par for the course.

This lack of substance is, of course no surprise to those of us who have followed Blunt’s career as a corporate toady doing latrine duty in the Senate – take, for instance, the total lack of product, other than conservative platitudes, that emanated from the Republican Healthcare Solutions Group that Blunt chaired.

Think Progress‘ Pat Garafalo offers some initial insights into the lack of there there that tend to confirm my initial impression. Garofalo faults Blunt’s plan for the predictable emphasis on “fearmongering about the deficit,” and argues that Blunt’s desire to rescind the unspent stimulus funds would amount to a tax on the middle class. More interestingly, Garofalo notes that in spite of all the deficit rhetoric, one of the few substantive proposals involves extending an expensive stimulus benefit for the real estate industry. Should we believe that it is just a coincidence that real estate is one of Blunt’s ten largest donor groups when his receipts are broken down by industry, having gifted him with more than $150,000 during the 2009-2010 election cycle?

But, you ask, ever ready to extend the benefit of the doubt, the important question is whether or not this benefit will actually create jobs? According Garofalo:

… the home buyer’s tax credit was enacted as part of the stimulus and then extended a couple of times, and by all accounts it was a complete and total boondoggle, costing taxpayers billions to subsidize activity that was going to happen anyway. Even the credit’s staunchest supporters have said that its “sunsetting is an incentive to drive people to the marketplace” and poo-pooed the notion of extending it forever, which clearly turns it into a permanent subsidy to the real estate industry.

Garofalo especially disdains Blunt’s willingness to extend this benefit given his jump-on-the-bandwagon bleating about the dangers of the deficit. I would add that a person who spends so much time trying to paint a moderately successful round of stimulus spending as a failure, should be really, really careful about selectively extending it for favored campaign contributors. Though Blunt’s two-faced response to the stimulus is, I guess, kind of an old story by now – he has been more than willing to claim credit for the goodies it brought the state – but it still stinks when he tries to use those funds to do his benefactors a solid on the public dime. It’ll be interesting to see just what other giveaways are tucked into Mr. Blunt’s loudly ballyhooed jobs plan.

In a letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today, a Maryland Heights man opened with a sweeping statement:

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the majority wish of the people of California regarding Proposition 8. It really stinks because the people have spoken, but a judge can ignore it. Democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people. The people of California have spoken loud and clear, yet, their will was overturned by a judge with the stroke of a pen.

Unfortunately he is not only wrong but confused abut the role of the court. Our particular democracy is a constitutional democracy.  Which is to say it is not just government by the people, but government by the people within the limits of a constitution. It is the job of the courts to determine whether or not the will of the people exceeds or conforms to those limits – they are actually constrained from taking the vagaries of popular opinion into account unless it pertains to the givens of the constitution. To judge by conservative rhetoric, the letter writer shares a common misconception that courts should bow to the popular will.*

Which is why is is heartening to learn that retired Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, is actively seeking to inform the public about the importance of the judicial system and to insure that it remains an institution in which we can continue to have pride. Rather than endorsing our Maryland Heights letter writer’s desire for greater electoral influence in the courts, O’Connor instead argues for greater impartiality. To achieve this goal, she endorses merit based selection of judges or a system of public financing of judicial elections. In her introduction to a new report on the crisis of perception facing the court, she singles out as a model the system of judicial selection used in Arizona, which – wait for it – was copied from the Missouri system, or the Missouri Plan as it is known:

The crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing. Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.

To avoid this outcome, state should look to reforms that take political pressure out of the judicial selection process. In recent years, I h ave advocated the system used in my home state of Arizona, where a bipartisan nominating committee recommends a pool of qualified candidates from which the governor appoints judges to fill vacancies. Voters then hold judges accountable in retention elections

Not surprising since more than 30 states have a similar system, but it does make me feel a little smug. Not just because Missouri got it right – or mostly right – but because we fought off a big-time, big money effort to bury the Missouri plan in favor of direct judicial elections just this year.

There are many reasons why we can all be happy that the Missouri Judicial Selection Amendment failed to collect sufficient signatures to make it to the November ballot. Lately, I haven’t felt too confident about the trajectory of Missouri politics – just read my earlier post about Brian Nieves and you too might wonder just what kind of people elect politicians like Nieves to make vital decisions abut their lives. However, I can at least feel good about how we select our judges – and secure that a majority of my fellow Missourians understand and respect the process.

* ADDENDUM:  Conservatives seem to think that the courts should adhere to popular sentiment as expressed in a vote, whether conformable to constitutional requirements or not, or, alternatively, they seem to think that the constitution is tied to a rigidly detailed framework of beliefs espoused by a few of the framers who were involved in negotiating the document.  Which belief is expressed at any particular time evidently depends on whether or not a particular framer can be found who at any time expressed views compatible with those of the conservative in question. Rich conservatives and corporate interests really like using their “freedom of speech” (i.e. cash) to make sure that we select judges in such a way that they can be sure they will be able to shop around for one who will support either of these points of view when convenient.

 

By now most Missourians have probably read about Rep. Brian Nieves (R-Washington), Republican candidate for the the 26th District Senate Seat, who allegedly assaulted Shawn Bell, a campaign aide for his primary rival, Republican Richard Stratman. According to Bell, Nieves held him at gunpoint, forcing him to undress and humiliate himself while Nieves raved about his putative misdeeds during the primary.

Now Nieves has gone off again – this time blasting the state GOP at a “prayer vigil” held by supporters Monday night. He used the opportunity to  blame his legal troubles on  the “kingmakers and the powerbrokers in the state of Missouri” who want to keep him out of government because he “”won’t be a lap dog. … There is no way they will ever control Brian Nieves.”

As in his earlier emails to supporters concerning the Bell affair, he employed grandiose, self-inflating rhetoric to make the case that he is being persecuted by vague, corrupt powers – unnamed state GOP powerbrokers who want to halt his “ascension” to the Senate seat, although Nieves knows that he will prevail because no less than “God has his hand all over this situation.” Compare this to the over-the-top tone of one of the emails he has been sending out:

We all know that the ‘Old Guard’ is very much threatened by all of us who will NOT bow down to The Machine and they are willing to literally destroy a man’s life to make sure nobody else gets the bright idea of standing up to them!

The Machine! Really! Is he saying that the Machine manufactured the Shawn Bell ruckus? And as long as we’re talking about troubling behavior, both FiredUp! and the St. Louis Activist Hub have noted that Nieves rhetoric has shown disturbing tendencies in the past. There is also, if we want to stroll down memory lane in search of portents of trouble ahead, the incident between Nieves and Trent Skaggs (D-North Kansas City) on the House floor, which escalated into a physical tussle in which they had to be separated by other House members.

Doesn’t all this hair-trigger rage, paranoia and overblown bombast strike you as an almost incomprehensible overreaction – on the part of the winner yet – a primary winner with big margins who will probably dance all over the Democratic opponent, “Boots” Webber – if he doesn’t blow it with his extreme behavior? Nieves is a politician after all; how can he continue to function if he is so easily aggravated by the “politics ain’t beanbag” facts of a tiny, little state political campaign? It’s difficult not to conclude that somebody ought to be looking out for this guy.

And it is clear that that somebody won’t be the Missouri Republican party which seems to have drawn a rather oblique lesson from the Bell affair. Instead of expressing concern about Nieves, they are instead calling for new intra-Party, primary only campaign rules that will proscribe the dirty tricks that seems to characterize their particular brand of go-for-the jugular campaigning. Which would, of course, be laudatory in a more neutral situation, but in this instance it does seem to be a case of blaming the victim – no matter how sleazy the victim may be.

As for the Tea Party? Certainly we know that there is no real concern for Nieves health in the rantings of Tea Party publicity hound Dana Loesch.  Loesch’s only contribution so far is to declare that Shawn Bell, a well-established Republican political figure, is a “dishonest Democratic operative,” coupled with a little of the usual entertaining dreck that she is so good at manufacturing. However it’s difficult not to worry be disturbed by Nieves’ rank-and-file Tea Party supporters who respond to his ravings with applause, and have no hesitation in cheering his over-the-top assertions, and even in naming the names he hesitates to mention:

Nieves declined to identify who the state “kingmakers” were, but asserted, “I know who they are, and they probably know I’m about to ‘out’ them.”

The emcee of the event, Cindy McGee — chairwoman of Show-Me Patriots, a conservative group aligned with the Tea Party movement — was not so reticent.

“James Harris and Jeff Roe are going down!” shouted McGee, referring to two top Republican consultants who had worked for Stratman… .

These are the people that the GOP is trying to keep worked up so that they will turn out and sweep them back into power – people who seem ready to haul out the torches and pitchforks on cue – anybody’s cue*. One has to ask, how is that responsible politics?

One can only feel sympathy for Nieves when we learn that the main reaction on the part of the above-mentioned James Harris was to remark that he and Nieves share the same goal – to keep the seat in Republican hands.  Apparently, Harris and the other malevolent “kingmakers”  don’t care just how shaky those hands are as long as they carry the same partisan banner.

* Edited to clarify meaning in the next to last paragraph; two typos elsewhere were corrected.



 

Missouri was one of 45 states to request and receive a 1 million dollar grant to improve oversight of the insurance market.  The grants, part of the Patient Protection and Afordable Care Act (PPACA), are meant to help states put into place a regulatory infrastructure that will “help improve the oversight of proposed health insurance premium increases, take action against insurers seeking unreasonable rate hikes, and ensure Missourians receive value for their premium dollars.”

Worried that the PPACA gave too much power to private insurers? Well these grants are a first step toward insuring that they don’t abuse that power and hike rates arbitrarily:

The Health Insurance Premium Review Grants are one element of a broad effort under the Affordable Care Act to reduce the unreasonable premium increases proposed by some insurers today.  Additional resources from this $250 million program will be available in subsequent years to further strengthen State health insurance premium review procedures.

I know that there is a noisy but small cadre of Missourians who voted for Proposition C because it they believe that the PPACA curtailed curtails their “liberty” to do themselves and everybody else over; I am equally sure that many of these same Missourians espouse a cloud cukoo land concept of free markets and will be up in arms about  efforts to introduce common sense regulation to what is currently a rogue insurance industry that wields outsize power at the state level:

In many states, it is the insurance industry that largely control the regulatory process, funneling money to key state lawmakers and squelching efforts to expand government oversight of premiums, a review of state regulations and campaign donations shows.

“The pressure that the industry can bring to bear in state legislatures is unbelievable,” said J. Robert Hunter, a former insurance commissioner in Texas. “They pretty much get what they want.”

We call the people who want to prolong this situation Tea Partiers or Republican wingers – and we will have to make just as much noise as they do and hope that a few of our saner state politicians develop some backbone. We have lots to loose if they don’t because, particularly if paired with prior approval authority, the Health Insurance Premium Review Grants could go a long way toward leveling the playing field for consumers and bringing health care costs down. And who, Tea Party imbibers aside, could object to that.  

Actually, even those states pandering to Tea Partiers may be reconsidering.  According to the Wonk Room, 19 of the 22 states that are suing the federal government over health care reform are quite happy to accept Health Insurance Premium Review Grants.

Title edited slightly

The KC Star Prime Buzz seems to think that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) push to remind folks just what pols like Roy Blunt have really said about Social Security is just an election year ploy: “one of the oldest in the Dems’ playbook.”

One wonders why it doesn’t occur to the wise old souls at the Prime Buzz that they’ve heard this theme before because efforts to gut New Deal programs have been a Republican constant – although at times they have managed to mute their animus against popular programs like Social Security. As for the DSCC response, you may not be able to teach an old dog new tricks, but you can try to restrain him when he threatens your well-being.  

Unfortunately for the skeptics, the DSCC has the goods on targeted GOPers – often in their own words. For instance, Roy Blunt on Bush’s plan to privatize social security:

… It might have been better if we had done it quicker, like a decade, decades ago, but we didn’t.” [CNN, 11/10/04]

To be sure, Blunt, like most Republicans, seems to be more than willing to talk out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but his record on Social Security and its sister plan, Medicare, speaks for itself. Who can forget Blunt arguing that government programs “distort” the market and it would have been better if programs like Medicare had never existed?

Republican wannabe wunderkind, Paul Ryan, in what Stephen Herrington calls his “quasi-official” Roadmap for America’s Future, proposes sunsetting both Social Security and Medicare. Politicians like Blunt know that it is political suicide to do more than tacitly endorse this Roadmap before the election – but I, for one,  don’t want to see Blunt come full circle and help enact the Roadmap or something like it if he manages to make it to the Senate.