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)

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

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  [reading the question] If you are elected to represent the people of Missouri how can you support the health care bill when the people you represent are obviously against it in light of Proposition C.

Well, believe me, I noticed. Um, and I guess I can tell you honestly [redacted] that [pause] I know I may go home over this vote. I know I may go home over this vote. And when I cast it I knew that. I’m not dumb and naïve in that regard. There are really hard problems that we don’t solve in Washington because they, you can’t solve them without making people mad. They’re big, they’re complicated, they’re hard and you’ve got to step on some people’s toes to begin to solve them. And one of our problems in this country is people who go to Washington are so focused on staying they are never gonna make anybody mad. They never want to tackle a hard problem ’cause when you tackle a hard problem, you know you’re gonna lose voters. It’s hard to get anything done without making some people mad.

Now, I think overall, as time goes on and people learn how this bill will be implemented and learn that what they’ve heard is not true in regards to parts of the bill this bill, I believe, I may be wrong, but I believe it will become more and more accepted by the people I work for. And it wasn’t easy for me to vote for the bill knowing how unpopular it was, but I honestly believed it was the right thing to do for health care costs in this country. That’s the best answer I can give you….

…[voice: “Yeah, but your job is to represent us.”]  Well, let me ask you this, campaign finance law in Missouri. Do you remember the vote in two thousand seven? Statewide? Do you remember what the vote was to limit contributions to candidates? You know what happened right after that? The Republican legislature in Jeff City said, forget about it. No limits on contributions. The same people that put Prop C on the ballot are the same ones that wiped out campaign finance limits that Missourians voted for. Carrying concealed weapons, anybody remember that statewide vote? [voices: “Yeah.”] How’d the people vote on that? [inaudible crosstalk] They voted against it. The people of Missouri voted no on carrying concealed weapons. And what happened after that? The legislature said, we know better.  Now, I guarantee you in this room most people are glad the legislature did that. Right? [inaudible crosstalk] You thought the people that voted were wrong and you wanted it to be a different way. That’s the way our system works. These statewide votes are not binding. And sometimes you’ll like what the people decide and sometimes you don’t. But what I gotta do with each and every vote I cast, I’ve gotta make sure I’m doing what I believe is the right thing for the future. And I honestly believe, and I know you disagree by the way you’re sitting there, I honestly believe that as time goes on it will help bring down the deficit, it will help bring down health care costs, it will make Medicare more affordable and therefore sustainable for the next generation. And doing nothing was just simply not an option. [applause] That’s what I believe.

[….]

Senator McCaskill:  [reading the question] EMR, electronic medical records, where does the funding for this come from? Rumor has it, Medicare trust fund  and that being the reason for no [inaudible crosstalk], oh, you mean for, for the Social Security trust fund? Have we reduced our deficit to China at all?

No, we haven’t reduced our deficit to China at all. Um, but, we’re on a trajectory to begin to reduce it. Um, [inaudible] the next ten years, I mean if you look at the out, we are probably at a record high right now because of what we did, because of the economic disaster. Um, we’re slowly but surely getting all that money back. We’ve gotten almost all of the TARP money back with interest. Looks like we’re gonna get all of our GM money back, we’ve gotten big chunk of it back. Um, I don’t know about Chrysler. That’s still iffy, we may lose that money. Uh, and obviously we’re not gonna be engaged in another giant stimulus like we did at the point in time when things were very rocky. So, of course the deficit shot up because of those initiatives. But, as you see in this diagram, that light blue, that light blue is the deficit. I mean it is the, uh, TARP, is the stimulus. So light blue is the stimulus, that dark, the middle shade of blue, that’s TARP.  So, you see how that goes away ’cause we’re getting it back and the light blue goes down, the others remain. The economic downturn is huge. We have less revenue in government because we have less economic activity. So that’s obviously been a hit.

The first part of your question is EMR. No, it’s not being paid for out of Social Security trust fund. The electronic medical records are being paid for, well, frankly some of that was in the stimulus. So, it wasn’t paid for, it was just stimulus activity to try to generate activity out there. But in the long run they’re gonna save money. [inaudible crosstalk][voice:”…you need to delete this (rumor e-mail) because it’s garbage.”] Right.  There’s a lot of that, there’s a lot of that. [inaudible crosstalk] There’s a, healthcare.gov is a pretty good web site, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a pretty good web site for, for factual information on the health care stuff. [voice: “Thank you.”]

[….]

Senator McCaskill:  [reading the question] Does the new health care bill do anything to encourage doctors to practice in rural areas of the state?

Yes. There’s incentives in there for nurses and for doctors. And there’s also, uh, upping, uh, rural health care, uh, payments to hospitals. Um, in fact, what I need to do because of your role with the regional planning commission let me get you a summary of all of the things in the bill that are geared toward helping people in rural areas get the same access to health care that people in the cities have, with the same kind of safety net provisions. That’s were telemedicine will really help, too, by the way. Um, you know, it, wouldn’t it be nice if you could see a doctor without leaving your house? That’s why all this rural broadband money that we spent money on, uh, with the stimulus. That rural broadband that Missouri’s getting’ a chunk of that, allowing people to have fast broadband will allow doctors to be able to see patients long distance. Um, many instances that the cost and the time of driving to a doctor is sometimes, uh, you know, for something that’s minor, you could do that with telemedicine and really help people in rural areas get more access to the help they need.

[….]

Question: Uh, my question, I work in economic development [redacted]. Uh, through, uh, USDA and through Department of Energy there’s [inaudible], not grants, but low interest loans for gre
en [inaudible]. Uh, first batch went through six eight months ago and the majority of those never reached grassroots companies in rural communities that were actually gonna create jobs. And I know another batch is in the process now. Is there any way to try to encourage USDA and the Department of Energy to focus those funds which are loans, they’re not grants…

Senator McCaskill:  Right, they’re loans.

Question: …to create jobs, green energy jobs in, in rural communities rather than giving them to large electrical companies and electrical associations, oil companies? Uh, can we get ’em [inaudible] down?

Senator McCaskill: Well, a, a chunk of it is going to the rural co-ops. Um, so you know. And of course we got a lot of those incentives that have done the wind farms up in northwest Missouri. In fact, um, that, a lot of that was a, of, of, of investment that was both rural co-ops, local money, and private money and some federal money in terms of incentives. So there is that going on. But, I’m happy to get a break down for you of the rural versus urban use of some of those green, that green jobs incentives and so you can get a sense of where it’s getting broken down. I think you might be, if you add in biodiesel and you add in ethanol and you add in what we’ve done with wind you might be surprised to find that more of those dollars have actually gone to rural areas than have to cities. When you add those programs together. All of which, of course, are incentivizing alternative energy.

Question: Thank you.

Senator McCaskill : Uh, huh.

[….]

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

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

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a town hall in Concordia, Missouri on August 10, 2010.

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)

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

….Question: My biggest question is, um,  I’m a businessman [inaudible]. My question is, [inaudible] in the thinking process, why was [inaudible]?  It does create a [inaudible]. [inaudible] It quadrupled in [inaudible]. [inaudible]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, actually, I think that they will go across state lines, the exchange in Missouri, because you’re allowed to sell insurance across state lines in a cooperative basis. The decision was made to not have the place that people can go to pool risk, which they can’t go to now, uh, is all gonna be private insurance companies. And the states are gonna administer that. And the states have every right, if they would like to go together with other states. And I’ve talked to the man who runs the insurance department in Missouri – it’s his intention to try to go together with a number of states so we can make the pool even bigger. And so there will be that…

…But here’s the thing about going across state lines, interestingly enough. Some of the very people who have talked to me about going across state lines also say to me, what about state’s rights? Now what you do, when you say from Washington that insurance companies don’t have to pay any attention to state law, that they can just sell anywhere in the country, what you’re basically doing is saying that states have no right to regulate what goes on in their state. Which means that the rules they set for insurance companies in New York or in Florida or in Texas could be the rules that a Missourian would have to live by, depending on where [inaudible] coming from. So we’ve always tried to respect the right of states to regulate their marketplaces within their borders. It is a radical concept that we would wipe that out. And the very people who are waving the Constitution saying, Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, I’m a Tenther, are the same ones that say to me sometimes, what about selling across state lines. And I get dizzy. I mean, you can’t have it both ways. We can’t wipe out all the state regulations and also respect state rights. So that’s why I think the way we did it, by having these decisions made at the state level so the state can decide if they want to go in with other states that maybe have similar regulations or rules, you know like in Missouri a woman who has a baby, you can’t kick her out of a hospital in less than twenty-four hours. In other states they don’t have that rule. Well, the Missouri legislature went down there, elected by all of you, and they voted. I think it’s twenty-four, isn’t it? I think it’s twenty-four hours in the laws you guys passed, isn’t it? Yeah. And, you know, so do we want to say to Jeff City you can’t say to insurance companies that women get to stay in the hospital for twenty-four hours when they have a baby? That’s the problem. [inaudible crosstalk] No, no, these are all gonna be private insurance companies. What this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like, uh, the best example I can give you is like Expedia. You know how you can go on Expedia and you can buy a airline ticket here or from Delta or from Northwestern or any of those? That’s what this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like a marketplace. There are gonna be a number of different kinds of policies and a number of different companies that are gonna offer polices. The idea is that it’s one central location where you can get a lot of people to go buy insurance, you get bigger risk pools. And the fact that everything is gonna be in the pool, the idea is it’ll bring down costs for everyone. And we will, you will no longer be paying for your competitor across the road who decides he doesn’t want to offer insurance. And somebody on his workforce breaks their arm, and they go down to the hospital and get their arm fixed and freeload off all of us, ’cause we pay for it with our higher insurance rates. That’s the idea behind this, as unpopular as it is, that’s the concept. Um, and that’s why we didn’t do a public option. It is not gonna be run from Washington. It’s gonna be run at the state leve and hopefully they will combine across state lines to make it more affordable for your company to continue to offer insurance.

[….]

Question: Immigration is one of my pet peeves. It seems to me that, uh, [inaudible] Do you agree with Obama and Hillary Clinton [inaudible] the Arizona law. In my opinion, it’s a [inaudible] Congress sitting on their hands [inaudible] They’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing. [inaudible] My, my question is, do you agree with [inaudible] Obama [inaudible}?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I agree with some things, I disagree with others. Uh, let me start with the best news. The best news is that, uh, the day before we left Washington last week we were able, I voted for a whole lot a Republican amendments to step up border enforcement, against most of the people in my party. I was able to get border security passed the day before we left Washington, six hundred million dollars. And the whipped cream and the cherry on top of this is the way we’re paying for it. Um, they way we’re paying for it – there are some foreign companies that have come to our country and more than fifty percent of their workforce is H1B visas. In other words, they’re bringing foreigners here with their companies to be the employees. So the idea was that if you have more than, if you’re a foreign company and you have more than fifty percent of your employees that are H1B visas, any other visas you get are gonna be very, very expensive. And the Wall Street Journal, the day after we passed it, this is the best, this Indian company that it will affect, it’s a, it’s a, basically a call center kind of operation, very, very large Indian company, it would affect them. And they were quoted in the Wall Street Journal, saying, this means we’ll have to hire more Americans. Yahoo!  I like that. That’s a-okay with me. That’s a great way to pay for the bill as far as I’m concerned.

This will [inaudible] six hundred million dollars in a very focused way along the border, um, for task forces. As a former prosecutor I know that, you know, you don’t just put the same amount of help everywhere along the border. It’s a very long border. It will be unmanned drones, aerial vehicles for real time aerial photography that we can see, real time, various places across the border without a lot of manpower. It’s gonna help. The good news also is immigration is down. Deportations are up. The percentage of the deportations being people who have committed crimes is up sixty percent. And audits against businesses that hire illegal immigrants are at a record high. So, we’re moving the right direction. More people are getting deported, more of them are bad guys, less people are coming across the border, and more businesses are being audited. Rather than just photo-op workplace raids, that’s wha
t we used to do, we’d do a workplace raid and the people that were there that day that were illegal, there’d be cameras rolling and everyone gets this mistaken impression that the employer was being held accountable and they never were. Employers didn’t even get a rap on the knuckle. Now we’re going more aggressively after the magnet that’s pulling them across.

I get the frustration in Arizona. Do I think that every border state can start doing federal immigration policy? I don’t think our Constitution allows for that. Now maybe we need to change the Constitution in that regard. I’m not here to debate that today. I completely understand the frustration of the Arizona people. But I think the way to get at that is do what we need to do to secure the border and begin to enforce the laws we have. I voted against comprehensive immigration, I voted against amnesty, I’m not gonna go there until this country demonstrates to the people who occupy it legally that we can enforce the law. So, that, that’s where I am on immigration. So that means I come down yes some places and no other places.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] I’m interested in protecting the environment. How do you think clean energy can be made economically beneficial and promoted as so? Mos, most of the publicity has been to scare us about the cost to individuals of regulation. We’re behind many countries in this area.

I appreciate your sentiment. I will tell you that my hesitancy in this regard is because Missouri is a coal dependent state and this is a tough economy. The last thing I’m going to be a part of at this point is larger costs to working people in Missouri, small businesses and manufacturing, for a cost on carbon that we don’t yet have the technology or the alternative energy developed that make it a cost effective alternative. Now, there are allowances in the bill for coal dependent states, but I thought they were allowances in the bill that were paying off people that we shouldn’t be paying off. You know, I’m not big on let’s pay off this state to get these votes, let’s pay off that state to these votes, so that’s why I was not happy with the House bill in that regard. Um, we’re doing some things to incentivize alternative energy. And yes, I do think we need to lead the world, but on the other hand it’s the same atmosphere. And if China and India are putting up coal fired plants every ten minutes, I, I want us to lead but I don’t want us to be [inaudible]. I don’t want us to be in a situation where all of a sudden manufacturing is really fleeing our shores, going for cheap dirty energy in India and China because our rules are so serious and stringent and their rules aren’t. We’ve got to bring our competitors along. Not just Europe, who’s done this, but our competitors, which for manufacturing is, is more South America, India, China and to some extent Japan.

Voice: Do you think that the, quote, mainstream media is downplaying the dangers?

Senator McCaskill: Is the mainstream media, I’m breaking my rule here ’cause I’m not supposed to go out of order, mainstream media is, are they downplaying the dangers? I don’t know what the mainstream media is anymore. Here’s one of my com…[crosstalk] [voice: “The three networks.”] Well, the three networks I think probably cover it pretty accurately on the evening news, but here’s the, the problem we’ve got with all the media right now. We now have news outlets that you go to get affirmation, not information. My friends on the left they all go watch MSNBC and you know what they feel? Righteously vindicated. We’re right, we’re right, listen to Rachel, listen to Keith. People on the right? They go to Fox and they say, the listen to Sean Hannity and they, and they go, you know what? We’re right, we’re right. And meanwhile what I had as a kid? [voice: “You think they’re equal.”] I think both, I think in different ways they’re very alike. Both of them are playing to a segment of ideological opinion in this country as opposed to [inaudible] really trying to present both sides. And when I was little I had to watch the evening news on network. And that was pretty straightforward. [voice: “Huh.”] That was pretty straightforward. I mean, you know, whether it was NBC, Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and then we’d talk about the news at the dinner table. And it was pretty objective. I’m not sure that all of our news sources now are as objective as they used to be when I was a kid. [inaudible crosstalk] Yeah [laugh].

[….]

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

Because, apparently, like a significant chunk of the republican party, they slept through all of their classes the first time.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

August 13, 2010

Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner

State Dining Room

8:37 P.M. EDT

…But let me be clear.  As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.  (Applause.)  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.  The writ of the Founders must endure…

Indeed.

TPM Editors Blog

Hear Washington Speak

Josh Marshall | August 14, 2010, 12:42PM

…No doubt the president’s advisors would much have preferred not to address this at all, wish it had never come up. But it’s difficult to imagine any president doing otherwise. We learn again that saying you’re for “democratic values” and freedom actually means being for “democratic values” and freedom. Are we in the tradition of the opening and plural societies of Amsterdam and London and America? Or the closed and authoritarian ones of Madrid and Moscow? The infrastructure of the Republican party has chosen to hoist its sail to religious bigotry. There’s no other way to put it. The president has done the only thing he could possibly do which is to state clearly that we’re Americans and we don’t discriminate on the basis of religious belief…

And the whole world is watching.

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)

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

….Question: Hi, Senator McCaskill. Thanks so much for coming out today. I was just wondering, with oil spill wreaking havoc in the Gulf, what do you propose to do to make sure that a disaster like this never happens to us again?

Senator Claire McCaskill Um, there will be a, um, the question was, uh, with the oil that has spilled into the Gulf, what are you gonna do to make sure that a disaster like the BP disaster never happens again? Um, you, I see your t-shirt. You probably aren’t gonna like this answer, some parts of it. Uh, we will not be considering a bill this year to place a price on carbon. And these ladies in the green t-shirt are almost as unhappy with me as [redacted] in that I have disappointed them because I refuse to be supportive of a, a price on carbon. I’ve, I’ve been, I have been, um, reluctant to support a price on carbon, um, for a cap and trade bill. On the other hand there is gonna be an energy bill that we will debate when we get back in September that will do three things. The first is accountability for BP, making sure that there’s not an artificial lid on what they would be responsible for in terms of the clean up. My job is to make sure taxpayers do not pay for their mistake. And so we want to make sure we remove the lid so BP has no artificial limit on what they would be required to pay to clean up the Gulf, to make those business whole, to make sure the families down there have not suffered because of their carelessness and negligence. Uh, it does some other things, like making sure that the companies that are doing offshore drilling have relief wells before they begin. Um, this problem was, it was never a relief well required. Truth be known, the oversight of oil and gas drilling in this country kinda was in a coma. Uh, and this goes for both administrations. They had not really been doing an aggressive job. And there has been a complete housecleaning over at that, in that regulatory area in the Department of Interior. So, we’ll be happy to get you all, you probably have it, as active as you are, you may have all the details of what’s in that bill as it relates to oils company accountability for negligence in offshore drilling that’s in the bill. The other thing that’s in the bill is a incentive to convert eighteen wheelers from, uh, diesel to natural gas. And the final part of it is a homestar provision which provides incentives for homeowners to weatherize their homes. Allow them to do things that will make their homes more efficient and spend less on their utility bills which is a win-win, uh, in terms of carbon emissions and also win-win, obviously, for homeowners in their electricity costs. Those are the three things that will be in the energy bill that we will debate before the end of the year. But I do not believe that the price on carbon will be coming up.

Question: Thanks for your time.

Senator McCaskill: Thank you.

[….]

…Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Are you, as you cut spending in education, what will you do with No Child Left Behind provisions?

Um, education traditionally in this country has been a state and local responsibility. About forty years ago the federal government began helping with state and local education. And then during the Bush administration passed probably the most seeping requirements from Washington [inaudible crosstalk] as relates to No Child Left Behind.

[inaudible crosstalk] Sir, we’re not gonna do this, we really aren’t. [inaudible crosstalk] We’re not gonna debate the, we’re not here to debate. [inaudible crosstalk] I’m here to answer people’s questions. [inaudible crosstalk] And I don’t want to be rude to you. [voice: “That was, that was Carter, was it not?”] That, actually, the first funding for local education was not under Carter, it was before Carter. But I’m not here to try to say it was a D or an R, sir, I’m not here, I’m trying just to answer the woman’s question. [inaudible crosstalk] It is not gonna be fair if you keep interrupting.  [inaudible crosstalk] No Child Left Behind was a mandate from Washington that frankly I think that just about everybody I’ve talked to in the education community, parents, teachers, superintendents don’t like, uh, teaching to a test, uh, an arbitrary number that people have to reach. So, it will not be authorized as it is.

The other thing that’s beginning to happen is I don’t think there’ll be as much money coming from Washington for state and local education. Now keep in mind, um, how many of you are aware that, um, there was eight hundred million dollars cut out of the state budget, a lot of, some of which is going to education in terms of education cuts? Okay. Keep in mind that had the stimulus not been at the state level that figure would have been three point two billion that would have been cut. They have been balancing the budget for the last two years with the stimulus money that we sent from Washington. Because we were clearly not excited about the idea of a whole lot of teachers and other public sector jobs being laid off, especially the teachers. There is another bit of help that’s coming if the House votes for it today. I didn’t vote for it the first time ’cause it wasn’t fully paid for, but we voted on it last week and it was fully paid for. And that will bring another four hundred million to help, to, to try to keep teachers from being laid off in Missouri at the state and local level. But this is a warning. For all of the federal programs, whether it’s CDDG, whether it’s state and local education, all of that, I think over the next twenty years there will be less and less money coming out of Washington and more and more reliance will have to come from the state and local governments. Because we cannot continue on the trajectory we’ve been on for the last twenty or thirty years in terms of the increase in spending for functions that were originally designed and traditionally have been borne by the states and local governments. [inaudible crosstalk]

Absolutely. And that’s the problem. No Child Left Behind was a federal mandate that didn’t have a lot of money with it, that frankly, I mean I bet if I asked everybody in here who your favorite teacher was you can remember. Right? And my favorite teacher that I remember, that really motivated me, they did it with imagination. They did it by being creative in the classroom. And the people who were the best teachers go into it because they want to be creative in the classroom. And the problem is [inaudible] No Child Left Behind was squeezing that creativity right out of the classrooms and forcing everyone just to teach to a test. That’s not how we’re going to compete globally in terms of bringing up our education standards. So, there is a very, very [applause] wide support for doing away with the way, and what we should be doing is measuring progress, not doing apples to oranges. Um, making sure that kids are making progress and that we are and that [inaudible] give credit that we do have a President who, and you’re probably a teacher.  Are you a teacher?  Yeah, superintendent. Yeah, you know, we have somebody who’s beginning to take on some of the teachers unions as it relates to performance pay, um, you know, not ninety percent of the teachers, a few of the teachers may not be as good as the others. And we’v
e been very bad in the education system in terms of weeding them out. And we need to do better at that. I mean the vast majority are wonderful, but the ones that aren’t great, uh, we need to have a way we can not keep them in the classroom, um, because that’s really gypping our kids.

So, next question.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Have you read the entire O, Obamacare bill?

Yes, I have.  [voice: “Two thousand nine hundred pages.”] I have. In fact, I’ve read parts of it twice. [voice: “Really?”] Yes, I have.  [inaudible crosstalk] And I read the financial reg bill, too. In fact, I’m co-sponsoring with Tom Coburn in the Senate, Dr. Tom Coburn, a bil, um, that will require all of the bills before we can vote on anything to be on the Internet for a minimum of seventy-two hours. [inaudible crosstalk] [inaudible] On the health care bill… [inaudible crosstalk] Okay. Section nine zero zero six in the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act amends section three forty-one of the Internal Revenue Code to require businesses to send Form 1099 to each vendor which they buy goods valued at more than six hundred dollars annually. [reading the question] How will health, health care be improved by this requirement?

Well, it was an attempt, which I disagree with, by the way, and there is a move to change this and I will make a prediction that will be removed by the end of the year ’cause there is wide support to remove it. It was put in there to help collect taxes that were owed. It wasn’t put in there to increase taxes, frankly, people are supposed to have taxes owed when they get reimbursed on business expenses over that amount. [inaudible crosstalk] Yeah. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, um, I hope you’re not surprised by them. Um, you know, the bill is public. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, and this is, you know, as I’ve said many, many times, the bill is not perfect, obviously. The bill is gonna need changes and tweaks along the way, it’s one of the reasons why all the provisions don’t go in all at once. They, they are, they are gradually gone in. I worry that some small businesses don’t know that they can get thirty-five percent of their health care premiums back as a tax credit this year. I’m worried that they don’t know that. I’m worried they don’t know that they get fifty percent of it back the following year. So, there’s both good news and bad news in this bill that people may not be aware of. As time goes on I hope they become more aware. This is something that I think is gonna cause more confusion than it is good. It is technically an effort to collect taxes that are owed. But the amount of paperwork that it’s gonna generate doesn’t make sense to me for the amount of taxes that we’re trying to, to collect. You know, all of us want anybody to pay the taxes they owe. I mean, I bet you most of you in this room pay your taxes like clockwork, but there’s a whole bunch of people out there that cheat. [inaudible crosstalk] And so part of this is trying to make sure everybody pays what is owed. [voice: “How about Timothy Geithner…he owed a whole bunch of back taxes? He still got nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury. How do we get by with people like that?”] Well, he paid all those before he was nominated. You’re right, he made mistakes. [voice: “There was six people in the Obama administration who were tax cheats. And there…”] There were definitely some people that were nominated who made mistakes on their taxes…  [inaudible crosstalk] have been repaid. [inaudible] I’m sure if you went through every administration you would find some of those. And it’s unfortunate. And I, I hope people don’t make mistakes on their taxes, but it is a problem that people make mistakes and some people intentionally make mistakes. [inaudible crosstalk]

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] What impact will Proposition C have on the health care initiative nationwide, and two, financially on the State of Missouri, mainly because of the long court battle.

I don’t know that there’ll be long court battle on this. Um, I, I don’t think there will. And it is, uh, basically what the referendum it doesn’t probably have much legal impact. Um, it was, uh, I think, largely political. Um, but, and I don’t think that it will have a huge amount of impact on what actually happens as it relates to the changes in health care that will begin to occur. I mean, people are still gonna get their checks in Missouri this year to help fill in the donut hole. The small business in Missouri will still get their tax credits this year if they’re paying for health insurance. They’ll get it next year. There’ll be a bigger check to help fill in with the donut hole next year. By the way, all that’s being paid for by the pharmaceutical companies who are paying back the government some of the excess profits we gave them on that Medicare D. They’re going to be paying the federal government back three and a half billion dollars next year alone to help pay for some of these things because we bucked them up a lot of excess profits of taxpayer money on Medicare D.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] Promoting fiscal responsibility, why pass another bill to cap spending? Several have passed in the past fifty years and none have been adhered to.

Well, actually, that’s not true. Um, there was a cap on spending during the nineties and there was also Paygo. And if you remember during the nineties we actually balanced the budget. [inaudible crosstalk] You know what happened? They let it expire. [inaudible crosstalk] Because the people who voted for it [inaudible crosstalk] the [inaudible crosstalk] I, you know that’s a really good question. I wasn’t there. If I would have been there I would have said, this is a bad idea to let this expire [inaudible crosstalk] ever. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, I, I’m trying to get one passed that’s good for three years. If I said it’s forever I don’t know I could get it passed. But I’m trying, I’m trying, but you keep in mind when these things expired. They had both Paygo and a cap on spending in the nineties and we balanced the budget. And then in the two thousands, in the two thousands they let ’em go. And they took earmarking to a new art form and they never vetoed any spending and they took spending out of control. I don’t know why because we actually had a surplus at the beginning of the Bush administration. [inaudible crosstalk] Boy, me, too. [inaudible crosstalk] I’m one of two Democrats that do not take earmarks in the entire Senate. One of two. [applause] And, um, and I’ll tell you what you ought to watch for. Watch for somebody who’s runnin’ who says they won’t take earmarks this year, but they won’t promise anything about next year. Now that’s insulting. That’s insulting to voters that someone would actually say, you know, in an election year I’m not gonna take earmarks, but I’m not making any promises beyond the election year. Watch out for that. Watch out for that. Um, you can’t, either earmarks are a wonderful thing and you ought to fight for ’em and arm wrestle for ’em and get all of ’em you can, or they’re a bad thing and you shouldn’t do it at all. This is something you can’t be half pregnant on. You’ve got to either decide that you think it’s a good way to pay the taxpayer money or it’s a bad way. I think it’s a ridiculous way to spend taxpayer money because it’s not based on merit. I’m not saying there aren’t meritorious projects that have been funded. I’m sure they’re things within the crow flies ten miles from here, I know things at Whiteman [AFB] that paid for with earmarks that have been helpful to the community. Some of the projects that have been funded are good. But it’s the process by which they’re funded. Because you know how you get to decide how much money you get? I don’t either. It’s some kind of deal that if you’re like on a certain committee you get more. If you’re more senior you get more. If you’re an appropriator you get a lot more. If you’re not on the Appropriations you don’t get as much. If you’re in political trouble you get mo
re. This notion that somehow you’re gonna have people at home vote for you if you’re in trouble and not gonna get elected if you get more earmarks. The way in which the decisions are made on how the earmarks are decided are fundamentally wrong with public money. We should only spend money on projects that have competed on their merit, not on who you know. And the vast majority of earmarks that occur have lobbyists attached to ’em. The vast majority. [inaudible crosstalk] [laughter] Well, they’re not taking personal money, they’re not taking personal money. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, I would just say [inaudible crosstalk] regardless of whether, I mean, in every bushel basket there is a bad apple. In every bushel basket. But I will tell you that the vast majority of the people in Washington, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, are honest people. They’re honest people. They’re not feathering their own nest. I think they’re doing things they shouldn’t be doing in the way they spend the public money, but the vast majority of, I’m not saying they’re all perfect, we’ve go, I’m sure they’re bad apples there, too, but, um, most of my colleagues that are Republican are trustworthy and most of my colleagues that are Democrats are trustworthy in terms of being politically corrupt or graft. [applause]…

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

It’s about time. By the way, how’s the concept of that private retirement account strikin’ yah today?

The transcript:

Remarks of President Barack Obama

As Prepared for Delivery

August 14, 2010

Washington, DC

Seventy-five years ago today, in the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, laying a cornerstone in the foundation of America’s middle class, and assuring generations of America’s seniors that after a lifetime of hard work, they’d have a chance to retire with dignity.  We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans – today, tomorrow, and forever.

Now, we’ve been talking for a long time about how to do that; about how to make sure Social Security is healthy enough to cover the higher costs that are kicking in now that baby boomers are retiring. And I’m committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security. But what we can’t afford to do is privatize Social Security – an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market.

A few years ago, we had a debate about privatizing Social Security. And I’d have thought that debate would’ve been put to rest once and for all by the financial crisis we’ve just experienced. I’d have thought, after being reminded how quickly the stock market can tumble, after seeing the wealth people worked a lifetime to earn wiped out in a matter of days, that no one would want to place bets with Social Security on Wall Street; that everyone would understand why we need to be prudent about investing the retirement money of tens of millions of Americans.

But some Republican leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They’re pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. It’s right up there on their to-do list with repealing some of the Medicare benefits and reforms that are adding at least a dozen years to the fiscal health of Medicare – the single longest extension in history.

That agenda is wrong for seniors, it’s wrong for America, and I won’t let it happen. Not while I’m President. I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble your Social Security on Wall Street. Because you shouldn’t be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you’ve worked so hard for – all you’ve earned – at risk. You should have the peace of mind of knowing that after meeting your responsibilities and paying into the system all your lives, you’ll get the benefits you deserve.

Seventy-five years ago today, Franklin Roosevelt made a promise. He promised that from that day forward, we’d offer – quote – “some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against…poverty-stricken old age.” That’s a promise each generation of Americans has kept. And it’s a promise America will continue to keep so long as I have the honor of serving as President. Thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. And have a nice weekend.

[emphasis added]

I thought so.

This afternoon Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano held a conference call to discuss the President’s signing of the Southwest Border Security legislation into law. This is the media question and answer session after Secretary Napolitano’s opening remarks:

Previously: White House Conference Call: Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano on the border security bill

…Question: Uh, good afternoon Secretary Napolitano. Uh, I have a, a two prong question for you, both related to the funding for this legislation. Uh, the first one is that, uh, this relies on the rescission of a hundred million dollars from SBINet and I know the President, uh, that was part of his original request, but will that in anyway, uh, take away from border security or, or any way divert from, from the efforts that are a part of this bill?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: No. Uh, we had proposed that. It had included in the original ask by the President. Uh, after doing an analysis of, of, uh, whether that would have any, uh, uh, any uh [inaudible] impact…

…Question: I see. And, and my second question is this, the, the funding, uh, as I understand, about five hundred fifty million that comes from H1Bs and L visas, is that a dependable source of funding? Because my understanding is that some of these companies, uh, that will bear the burden of these fees, uh, could do things that would remove them from this pool of target companies that are the, the funding source of this bill. So, uh, can the Department of Homeland Security depend on this, uh, as a reliable source of funding?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, uh, we believe so. Uh, the Senate and the House obviously believe so.  And the CBP believes so because they, uh, issued an analysis that, uh, affirmed this source of funding.

[….]

Question: Um, I just had a couple quick questions specifically on the, um, forward operating bases. Can you just tell me a little bit more about what those are and have you decided where they’re gonna go? And then just on the overarching, I know you somewhat addressed this in the, um, in the White House briefing, but, um, having been here for a number of years watching, uh, immigration reform and, uh, both the politics and the admin, administrative stuff being done it, it, it seems that’s all that ever has been done in, in the past decade is enforcement. And once again, President Obama has promised, um, immigration reform, uh, comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalization but, what’s come instead is, um, enforcement. Um, I’m just kind of wondering why anyone who has supported the President, uh, in the past would, should support him any longer if he was unable to deliver on this.

Secretary Napolitano: Well, to, on the forward operating base [inaudible] it is exactly, uh, what the name implies. It is a, a, uh, a facility, uh, that will enable Border Patrol agents and, uh, some of their support to be located physically at the border as opposed to, uh, [inaudible] from the border where they have to drive to the border, um, and we have, we’ve got several options for those. We have not yet determined where those are going to be. With respect to your second point I just think it’s inaccurate all the way around. Uh, first of all, uh, the President has done everything, uh, uh, presidentially possible, uh, to affirm his desire for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, uh, that would address enforcement but also address, uh, worker [inaudible]  and also address, uh, those illegally in the country and how they, uh, get right with the law and earn, earn the right to, uh, seek the privilege of citizenship. And so, uh, he has, uh, met with, uh, Republican and Democratic leadership. Uh, he’s called them personally. He has, uh, issued, uh, a public, uh, affirmation of the framework that was endorsed by, uh, Senator Schumer and Graham. He’s given a major address at American University. Uh, so he continues to, uh, have this at the top of, uh, the agenda and moving forward. But as you know, and as I said in the White House briefing, he, he can’t introduce, I mean, he can’t pass a bill, I mean. And the Democrats alone cannot pass a bill, they need sixty. And they’re gonna need Republicans, uh, who are willing to, uh, get to the table and really deal with this, uh, major national issue.

[….]

Question: Secretary, first off, I was wondering if you could just tell us how the one thousand Border Patrol agents will be dispersed, as far as you know, state by state. And also, a second question, that Texas Governor Rick Perry on Monday gave the President a letter with some, uh, some of his own ideas on how to secure the border. Have you read that letter? And if so, will it have any kind of impact on, on how you’ll be moving forward with the border security issues?

Secretary Napolitano: I have not personally read that letter. I, I, I have read some of the governor’s comments in, in the, in the open press. Uh, but I will tell you, look, we’re not just gonna throw money at the border. Uh, this is all designed to be mission specific. We know exactly, for example, uh, what the National Guard that we’re sending down there are going to do, where they’re going to be. Uh, with respect to the new agents, uh, that are funded in this bill, uh, it takes on average eight months from the time of hire to get a new agent trained, located, and on the ground. And we will put those agents where we think the needs are greatest. Uh, where the needs, uh, and, and that will [inaudible] time as you know. Uh, and so, uh, we will want to be flexible and we want, we will want to put our resources where, uh, the needs, uh, the needs are manifest.

[….]

Question: Good, good morning, Secretary. Good afternoon, I guess, there. I did want to follow up on something you talked about, uh, your seventeen years in public service including here as governor. And you, you perennially made an issue of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. And [inaudible] wondering, since you were speaking for the administration, why hasn’t the administration asked for full funding for this the same as you did when you were Arizona governor?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, as you know, SCAAP is, uh, is, uh, funded through the Department of Justice, not the Department of Homeland Security. Uh, uh, but, uh, I think the administration has chosen to support states in a, in a number of other ways. For example, uh, by providing more, uh, what’s called Stone Guard monies for state and local law enforcement. That’s, that’s money that they can use for overtime, to hire new folks, uh, to help pay for, uh, vehicles and equipment that they need for law enforcement, Um, so, uh, those monies have been made available. Uh, more, uh, or COPS funding that, uh, localities can draw down, uh, particularly locales, uh, on the border. Uh, our grant guidance, uh, this year, uh, uh, part of it will be, uh, to support Fusion Centers and Fusion Centers, uh, are very important in places like the bor, like the border. So, from a DHS perspective, since we don’t have SCAAP in our, uh, in our bailiwick, uh, I can’t respond to that, uh, uh, question, but I can say we have looked for many other ways to support state and local law enforcement.

[….]

Question: Uh, Secretary, the question that I had was specific to New Mexico. Um, I know there’s been a lot of, uh, focus on Arizona and now some focus on Texas. Um, in terms of the assets and how they’re allocated, uh, throughout the states I know that you can’t specifically say exactly how much is, uh, going where, but what does this mean for New Mexico on the grand scope of things?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, well, uh, thank you, uh, well, what it means is, is that, uh, we will continue to, to put resources in New Mexico, uh, uh, to deal with th
e situation there. It is a somewhat different situation, just plain old numbers wise, uh, than you have in Arizona and Texas and so the resources we deploy, uh, there will reflect that. But they will all be designed to make sure we have a safe and secure border, uh, throughout, uh, the southwest, uh, for all, all of the four border states, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and, and Texas. Uh, I say that, um, as someone who actually grew up in New Mexico, so, uh, just as I keep a special eye on Arizona as the former governor, I have a lot of personal experience with New Mexico as well.

[….]

Question: Uh, Madam Secretary, back to Governor Perry, uh, you said that the, uh, uh, the border’s no place for, for politics. Uh, uh, when you said that did, were you personally referring to Governor Perry? Do you believe he’s politicizing the border and his constant criticism of, uh, of, uh, your administration’s efforts?

Secretary Napolitano: Yeah, uh, no I was not specifically referring to Governor Perry. I know Governor Perry and, and I’ve worked with him for a number of years. Uh, we, we were fellow border governors, uh, together. Uh, uh, I do believe that the border, whether you’re dealing with it, uh, back here in Washington, D.C. or out, uh, in the southwest, uh, needs to be addressed for what it is. It’s a, an important, uh, area for the country, lots of trade and commerce [inaudible] those ports. Uh, you’ve got those huge ports, uh, in Texas, for example the, uh, through which a tremendous amount of trade needs to pass and they’re responsible for a number of jobs, uh, in the United States. Uh, and then you’ve got to protect the area between the ports and you’ve got to have interior enforcement, so it’s a whole system of manpower, technology, infrastructure to have in place. And this administration, quite frankly, has put more resources in the southwest border in all of those categories than has ever been put there before in, in United States history.

[….]

Question: Good afternoon, Secretary. Have you personally spoken with Senators McCain or Kyl  here in your home state about the prospect of immigration reform and what do they say to you?

Secretary Napolitano: Uh, I, I met with both of them, but I would say it has been, uh, uh, probably some time ago, so I think you, it would not be, uh, correct to say that the, the three of us are in a constant dialog about that.

[….]

Question: Uh, yes, Madam Secretary, uh, the governor of Virginia has offered to, uh, have Virginia State Police be deputized to enforce federal immigration law in the commonwealth. Uh, I have done some, uh, interviews with some people in, for example, Hanover County, where they say they can’t, uh, harvest the tomato crops without immigrant labor, both legal and illegal. Is the administration open to the governor’s offer to, uh, deputize our state police to enforce immigration law?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, I, I think, uh, uh, ICE is currently, uh, reviewing nine separate juris, there are nine jurisdictions that have, uh, current applications in. They’re called 287G agreements. Uh, uh, deputization would not I think be the right word. It’s where, uh, certain mem, uh, a certain number of state police or local police are trained in immigration enforcement and work, uh, either in jails, uh, or in task force settings with federal agents. Uh, and we have, uh, uh, really, uh, uh, reformed that program to be, to, uh, uh, to be what it needs to be and to have the kind of accountability it needs to have. So, Virginia’s application is pending and ICE will review it. Uh, I’m not sure how that relates to the second part of your question, which is the lack of agricultural workers, uh, except to say that that is something we hear all over the United States. Uh, uh, indeed, uh, uh, uh, you, you hear it in border states and in states, uh, uh, like Washington, uh, in terms of, uh, picking the apple crop, in Washington State, and that all goes to demonstrating the need for overall immigration reform.

[….]

Question: Good afternoon, Secretary. Well, um, my question is twofold and I’m curious whether the new money will give the, uh, department a new opportunity to work clo, more closely with the individual police departments along the border. There continue to be these anecdotes of the Zetas moving into Texas and to some Texas ranches and I’m curious how that’s been responded to. And then also, whether the, um, the department is going to deal any differently with the issue of whether Mexico, now talking seriously about legalizing drugs, showing some fatigue on the drug war and how will the, the response be different to them?

Secretary Napolitano: Well, uh, uh, because we continue to augment and put resources at the border, uh, because some of them are going to be used for intelligence gathering and analysis, uh, they will be working, uh, on some of those issues like the Zetas, uh, uh, and working with institutions like EPIC for example, uh, to make sure that resources are focused where they need to. We don’t want those, uh, large organizations, uh, infiltrating, uh, even more into the United States. Again, a safe and secure border zone all the way from San Diego to Brownsville. Uh, and different cartels, uh, claim turf or jurisdiction over different parts of the border, so we’re very conscious of that, uh, and we’re going to keep working to, to prevent that from occurring.

[….]

This afternoon Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano held a conference call to discuss the President’s signing of the Southwest Border Security legislation into law:

….Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: Thank you and, and thank you all for participating on the call. Uh, I was pleased to be with the President earlier today as he signed the bill providing six hundred million dollars and additional resources to further strengthen security along the southwest border. Uh, I’d like to particularly applaud the Congress for acting in a bipartisan manner, uh, and taking quick action on this bill, uh, particular Senators Schumer and McCaskill, and of course Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi.

Uh, this legislation adds permanent resources to bolster, uh, security along the southwest border, supporting efforts to, uh, cut down on, uh, transnational criminal organizations and to reduce the trafficking of people, drugs, currency, and weapons. [inaudible] is important in two respects. First, it adds new resources to the border, but second it makes permanent many of the assets that we have been surging along the southwest border, uh, since basically march of two thousand and nine.

Uh, now, uh, let me just pause there for a moment. I have, uh, been working on the border on border related issues for seventeen years as a public servant, as the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, as the Attorney General of Arizona and as the two-term Governor of Arizona. Uh, I believe firmly that the border is not a political or partisan issue. And it shouldn’t be. It’s a matter of national security in which everyone has a stake. So, uh, on that score, even before this bill was signed, or indeed, even before the President made his formal request for these monies, uh, the administration had already devoted more resources to the southwest border than ever before in United States history.

Uh, these efforts have made a difference. Seizures are up and rose across the board last year. Uh, apprehensions or illegal crossings are down. Uh, for the first time ever we’re screening one hundred percent of southbound rail. Uh, criminal alien removals are at an all time high. We’ve added more technology, manpower, and resources than ever before. This is a systematic long term effort to defeat the cartels, uh, who continue to try to exploit the border. And the administration is dedicated to a long term systematic approach. Uh, that’s one of the reasons why the President ordered the National Guard to the border and why he asked Congress for the supplemental funding that he was pleased to sign today.

Now, what’s in the bill? Uh, bill provides funding for another one thousand, uh, border patrol agents. It contains sixty-eight million dollars for customs and border protection officers at ports of entry, uh, who facilitate legal trafficking, uh, or legal traffic, excuse me, and the interdiction of contraband. It allows, uh, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to hire more than two hundred special agents. Uh, they’ll be doing investigations and many will be doing, uh, intelligence analysis. Uh, it provides two more unmanned aircraft systems and has money for tactical communications technology. What does that mean? It means that agents along the border who can’t use cell phones because of the remoteness of the border, uh, will have updated and improved technology to communicate with each other.  Uh, there’s also a hundred and ninety-six million dollars in the bill for the Department of Justice, uh, to surge federal law enforcement agents like DEA and ATF, uh, to add prosecutors, to add immigration judges, and to support detention and incarceration, uh, of, uh, illegal immigrants who are, uh, seized and incarcerated in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement efforts. Uh, there’s also money in the bill to, uh, construct twp forward operating bases, uh, for improved border enforcement.

So, uh, clearly this bill is a, uh, really a, a terrific, uh, tool in our multi, uh, faceted toolbox of enforcement efforts and resources along the southwest border. Uh, and as I have said many times before it’s enforcement that is layered. It includes manpower, technology, and infrastructure. Uh, and it’s enforcement that needs to be constant, uh, along the border, the entire expanse of it, all the way from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas. Uh, this bill will enable us to sustain that and to maintain that, uh, and that is, uh, so very, very important.

Uh, so with that let me, uh, stop and, uh, and open it up for questions….

The President’s June 22, 20010 request [pdf].

The candidates in the 121st Legislative District – the Democratic Party candidate, Courtney Cole – and the republican incumbent, Denny Hoskins – have been going door to door and distributing their campaign literature (in campaign parlance, “walk pieces”).

You have to wonder about the efficiency of a campaign that drops campaign literature at a home with their opponent’s sign in the yard. But, it gives us all an opportunity to deconstruct the wasted walk piece:

Putting Johnson Countians back to work is my first priority.

What, no printing trades “union bug” on the walk piece? It would appear that addressing the concerns of working people gets lip service and no actual support. Maybe it’s possible that some people aren’t concerned about a living wage and good paying jobs for working people.

I envision a Missouri government that is efficient and effective…

And there is the matter of the republican majority in the Missouri House of Representatives failing to act on jobs bill after having spent weeks during the early part of the legislative session fussing over symbolic legislation on federal issues. And how much did that special session cost? How’s that for efficient and effective?

…not a Missouri with high taxes…

Really? High taxes? In Missouri? I don’t think so.

….Missouri’s State/Local Tax Burden Below Average

Estimated at 9.2% of income, Missouri’s state/local tax burden percentage ranks 32nd highest nationally, below the national average of 9.7%. Taxpayers in Missouri pay $3,508 per capita in state and local taxes….

Taxes? He said taxes!

And no mention of legislative successes? Oh, never mind…

Oh, and those “Legislator of the Year” awards handed out by the republican caucus? Don’t they pass those out like cheap candy on Halloween? Just asking.

What is it with right wingnuttia and exclamation points? Spotted on a vehicle in eastern Jackson County:

Yes, yes, let’s reject change because everything was running so swimmingly from January 2001 to January 2009. As for keeping your money, blame someone else:

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

In numerous polls, the public has voiced their displeasure at the much maligned bank bailout, but most don’t know which president signed the controversial act into law. Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama….

And that freedom part?:

April 2, 2008

NEW YORK – A newly disclosed secret memo authored by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in March 2003 that asserts President Bush has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations of detainees also reveals a radical interpretation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The memo, declassified yesterday as the result of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, cites a still-secret DOJ memo from 2001 that found that the “Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.”

The October 2001 memo was almost certainly meant to provide a legal basis for the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program, which President Bush launched the same month the memo was issued. As a component of the Department of Defense, the NSA is a military agency….

Well, at least the Obama Administration hasn’t started confiscating our personal firearms. Yet. Though they are keeping track of people with a miniature chip embedded in NRA stickers.