Thanks to the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House and Senate, who persevered in the face of ongoing Republican obstruction, Missouri will receive almost $400 million dollars to stave off teacher layoffs and cuts in Medicaid. This means, as Michael Bersin pointed out earlier, that jobs have been saved. Many of our neediest have been given breathing space for another year. The state, which is balancing on the edge of a fiscal knife, may avoid, for one more year at least, transformation into the third-world outpost that GOP legislative leaders seem to want to create.

It’s no surprise, though, that those same just-say-no Republicans who tried to kill the bill  are hell-bent on distorting this tiny extension of stimulus spending.

Blaine Luetkemeyer, for instance, wants to turn the tables and present his obstruction as an effort to save jobs:

It was a bad bill, pure and simple. It’s another bailout,” Luetkemeyer said. “Our challenge is to find ways to help businesses keep doing what they’re doing.

Luetkemeyer is partially right. Finding ways to help small businesses grow and expand is important if we are going to crawl out of this recession – but the way to do it is not to destroy the consumer base that provides the fuel for economic growth.  

Todd Akin tried another tack: play on the sense of resentment that seems to animate so many Republicans. Akin asks us to begrudge the money going to those grasshoppers in spendthrift states who fiddled while industrious Missouri ants suffered and cut their social spending right through to the bones of the neediest among them:

It wasn’t easy but our legislature balanced Missouri’s budget. And most Missourians individually make difficult and responsible spending choices every day. Yet today’s bill will force Missourians – and all Americans – to spend the next decade paying off six months of new spending, most of which will benefit states that had neither the courage nor the wisdom to balance their own budgets.

The next decade paying it off? Akin is more economically challenged than I thought – the bill is not only “paid-for” out of cuts elsewhere, but it will cut $1 billion from the deficit.

Roy Blunt couldn’t be bothered to vote on this spendig bill because he was too busy campaigning in Missouri – which is to say gallivanting around the state lying about his record as a leader of the Republican Congress responsible for a recession that cost the country nearly eight million jobs. When the Carnahan campaign called him on his dereliction, however, he quickly jumped on the resentment and begrudgery band-wagon so capably driven by Akin:

Now she’s [i.e., Carnahan] supporting another $26.1 billion bailout for states that have failed to manage their budgets so they can kick the can down the road another year. Missourians are saying ‘enough is enough.

I don’t know about all the Missourians that Blunt evidently thinks he speaks for, but this Missourian has had enough. Enough of lies about the stimulus, enough of obstruction, and more than enough of what is happening to our state because these prime jackasses think that they can keep on keeping on if only they make sure that the economy tanks so they can blame it on the Democrats. Ezra Klein eloquently sums the situation up:

…there’s no debate over what state and local aid does: It allows the continuation of programs that are already ongoing, the preservation of jobs that people already occupy, the protection of tax rates that are currently in place. It doesn’t promote economic expansion, which is a somewhat uncertain business. It prevents economic contraction, which is a much more predictable project.

If states have to cut $120 billion from their budgets, that money — and the things it does — will just leave the economy. There will be fewer jobs, higher taxes, less financial aid. None of that is speculative. There’s no theory in which it doesn’t happen.

Previously: Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) speaking with a constituent immediately after the town hall in Concordia, Missouri.

After yesterday’s town hall in Concordia, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill briefly took questions from media.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) (left) with the “second questioner” (center) and “first questioner” (right) at the media availability immediately after the town hall in Concordia.

[….]

Question: Drove down to say hi.

Senator Claire McCaskill: Yes, look at you all the way down here. You must have something controversial [crosstalk] to ask me.

Question: Nah, nah, nah, not at all, not at all, want to hear what people are saying.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, good.

Aide: Go ahead.

Question: First, let me ask, did, how did you vote on Proposition [inaudible].

Senator McCaskill: Uh, I voted no.

Question: You voted no.

Senator McCaskill: Um, hm.

Question: And it was the right vote?

Senator McCaskill: I think it was. Well, uh…

…Question: You like the individual mandate?

Senator McCaskill: Uh, I mean, the mandate obviously is the most unpopular part, but, um, when you ask people if they want to do away with preexisting conditions they say, well of course, that’s so unfair. Well, who’s gonna buy insurance before they’re sick. You can’t do away with preexisting conditions unless you set up an environment where everyone has insurance. The nice thing about this is it’s not gonna be government run, it’s not gonna be government policies. People are gonna be able to shop, make choices. And if they can’t afford it we’re gonna help ’em by making it more affordable with some help from the government. So I think it’s, is it a perfect solution? No. But it’s the best solution I think that anybody’s come up with to an untenable spiral of healthcare costs in this country.

Question: Let me change, que, and he’s got, um, you did get a couple questions that I saw on immigration. [inaudible] a huge issue in Kansas in the Republican primary. Chris Kobach is now the nominee for [Kansas] Secretary of State, I’m sure you’ve heard of his name, Claire. Give me some sense of whether you think immigration is going to, it was a big issue in oh-six, then not so much in oh-eight, now back in ten it looks like a huge issue [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Well [crosstalk]…

Question: …that people are really worried about.

Senator McCaskill: …I think people want the laws to be enforced. I think it’s just that simple.  And I think we, um, need to make a priority. What I have tried to do since the day I’ve gotten here is be consistent with what I’ve said during the campaign. I’m gonna go to Washington and do everything I can [inaudible] the laws we have in place enforced and to go after employers who knowingly hire [crosstalk]…

Question: Right.

Senator McCaskill: …illegal immigrants.

Question: Which is kind of the Democratic approach.

Senator McCaskill: well, and, I think it’s a republican approach, too, by some people who now realize [crosstalk]…

Question: Their deal is build the wall. And the Arizona law.

Senator McCaskill: Yeah, well, first of all. [crosstalk]

Question: Which you don’t support.

Senator McCaskill: First of all, people aren’t coming across the border for vacation. They’re coming to try and feed their families. If they don’t think that they can get a job, this reminds me of when we were trying to deter crime. We had a hard time deterring meth cooks, but we could deter the businessmen that were selling the ingredients for meth. And that turned the tide. This is the same kind of thing. We can deter businessmen from hiring illegal immigrants if we come down like a load of bricks on ’em.

Question: Better than wall, better than Arizona in your view, I mean you told [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Better. [crosstalk]

Question: …these folks you’re not a supporter of the Arizona law.

Senator McCaskill: Better. I said parts of it I support, parts of it I don’t support.

Question: But the idea of Arizona taking it on their own is something [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: I think we have to be careful of having fifty different immigration policies in this country…

Question:  Yeah.

Senator McCaskill: …that the federal government ultimately is gonna bear the cost for. But I get their frustration. I think border has to be part of it, that’s why I did the border [crosstalk] security bill…

Question:  Yeah, right.

Senator McCaskill: That’s why I’ve continued to vote for more border security. That’s part of it, but employer enforcement is also part of it. Once we get those two things better handled, uh, then we can maybe talk about something else. But I’m not interested in talking about anything else until we do a better job [crosstalk] on those two subjects.

Question:  Do you think that plays into the, into the, these midterms? [crosstalk]

Senator McCaskill: I don’t know whether it, I [crosstalk]…

Question:  Immigration, I mean is it [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: …don’t know if it plays or not. It just is my opinion [crosstalk].

Question:  Bigger than hea, no, but it, is immigration more important to people now than say health care, Claire? Is, or, or the deficit, uh, because it seems like it comes up. I went to a Moran [Kansas Republican U.S. Senate nominee] town hall, first five questions were on immigration.

Senator McCaskill: Yeah, I think people, um, people are uncertain and, and antsy about the economic conditions right now.  And when you feel uncertain about economic conditions then it, it, it’s more likely that you focus on well, who’s here that shouldn’t be here. Who’s taking part of the pie that doesn’t deserve it, because it feels like my part of the pie is shrinking and I’m playing by the rules. [crosstalk]

Question:  Particularly if their skin color is different?

Senator McCaskill: I don’t know about skin color, because I, I, I, I’m not gonna go there. I, I think this is more about a frustration that I’m playing by the rules, how come everybody else [crosstalk]…

Question:  Yeah.

Senator McCaskill: …doesn’t have to play by the rules?

Question:  All Right.

Senator McCaskill: I think it’s that simple.

Question:  That’s all I need to know. [laughter] [crosstalk]

Question [second questioner]:  Claire, getting back to Prop. C, you talked about the largely symbolic import, but. But what about the political ramifications, including the midterm elections as well as, perhaps, uh, your own reelection campaign in two years?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I’m, look, you know, I’m, I’m not, I’m not deaf, dumb, and blind. I’m sure there, there’ll be some political ramifications. I’m hopeful that as time goes on and people begin to realize the positive things that are in the bill and realize that some of the things they’ve heard are just not true, um, that, that it won’t be as unpopular as it was in the primary election. And, and the split in the primary election was very close to Democrat versus Republican. And, and in that regard it was a fairly unusual election in Missouri ’cause typically in, in primaries we
have a more fifty-fifty split, we certainly usually have a more fifty-fifty split in general elections.

Question [first questioner]:  But, but you had Democrats voting for Prop. C [inaudible].

Senator McCaskill: We had some Republicans voting against it [crosstalk], but…

Question [first questioner]:  Right, but you had lots [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Absolutely, absolutely. This is an, let me state unequivocally this is an unpopular piece of legislation. Um, but it’s really hard to fix a hard problem in this country, uh, and, and, and make it be really popular, because if it’s really popular it doesn’t generally fix anything.

Question [second questioner]:  The handouts that were left, uh, on the chairs regarding the, the ten myths, I think, that’s so, uh, something that will be distributed at [inaudible] the other meetings today and tomorrow as well? [crosstalk]

Senator McCaskill: We’ve been distributing ’em for a while. We think that may be the easiest way to begin to get people focused that, realize some of the things they’ve heard aren’t true.

Aide: Sorry, we’re on a tight schedule. [crosstalk]

Questioner: Thank you, that’s all I need.

Senator McCaskill: Hey Michael, how are you? Nice to see you.

[….]

Question [first questioner]: ….instead of extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone we let them expire and then give everyone a credit to purchase it or has insurance because you want to incent them to do that. So the net effect is zero on the recipients, those who have insurance. The only people who are not incented are those who don’t have insurance, but they’re not penalized, they just don’t get a tax break.

Senator McCaskill: Well, [crosstalk] the problem is…

Question [first questioner]: And you could do the math really.

Senator McCaskill: …the vast majority of the people who don’t have insurance are not people who enjoyed any benefit under the Bush tax [crosstalk] cuts.

Question [first questioner]: But they don’t pay, yes they did,  as EITC recipients. And so what you do in essence, is say your EITC is gonna shrink unless you use some of that money to buy insurance, in which case your EITC goes back up, you’re made whole and by the way, you now have health insurance.  And it’s a backdoor way of paying for it. [crosstalk]

Senator McCaskill: Well, you know, I’m gonna get you the numbers on it [crosstalk] because they ran ’em.

Question [first questioner]: The math [crosstalk].

Senator McCaskill: They ran ’em [crosstalk].

Question [first questioner]: Well [crosstalk], but you.

Senator McCaskill: And I want you to see the numbers. But, you need to run, clearly, you’re itchin’.

Question [first questioner]: [inaudible]

The “Ten Myths” handout [pdf][Note: This is the online version. The printed version which we received at the town hall had additional information and citations] provided to each person in the audience by Senator McCaskill’s staff:

HEALTHCARE REFORM

TOP 10 MYTHS AND FACTS

Myth 1: The value of your health insurance will be added to your W-2 income and you’ll be taxed on it.

Reality: Most people do not know how much their insurance costs since employers often pay a large share of the premium. The new law requires employers to report the value of insurance on employees’ W-2s, but it is solely informational and is on a separate line that is not included in the taxable income.

Myth 2: When you sell your house you will be required to pay a 3.8% tax on the sales price.

Reality: The new law includes a 3.8% tax on unearned income for individuals who make over $200,000 or couples who make over $250,000. Unearned income includes making a profit on the sale of a home, but a couple can exempt the first $500,000 in profit from such a sale. That means that a couple would have to make over $250,000 per year AND make a PROFIT of over $500,000 on their home to be taxed. The median home sales price in MO is $149,900.

Myth 3: Congress is exempted from the healthcare law.

Reality: Like everyone else, members of congress and their personal staffs are required to maintain minimal essential coverage. Congress and their staff are the only people required by law to buy their insurance on the exchanges.

Myth 4: The exchanges are “Government-run” insurance.

Reality: The exchanges are shopping sites comparable to Expedia™ where private insurance companies like BlueCross sell their insurance. None of the choices will be government-run and individuals are not required to buy their insurance there, but rather can get their insurance through their employer or private broker. The exchanges make sure that state-specific laws are met, and by setting minimum standards they ensure that consumers won’t end up being sold bogus insurance.

Myth 5: Healthcare reform will cut benefits for military families.

Reality: Nothing in this law reduces any benefits to active military members or veterans. The president of the Military Officers Association of America, VADM Norb Ryan Jr. (Ret.), had this to say about the new healthcare law: “But if you were worried that national health reform legislation is somehow aimed at whacking military beneficiaries’ health coverage, that’s just not so.”

Myth 6: This law creates death panels that will order euthanasia for sick patients.

Reality: There are no panels to determine end of life care. The decisions about patient care rest in the hands of the patient and their family as was always the case. This false claim was a scare tactic fabricated by opponents and cannot be found anywhere in this law.

Myth 7: The healthcare reform law cuts Medicare benefits.

Reality: No guaranteed Medicare benefits are cut by this law. An experiment started in 1997 created Medicare Advantage, a privatized form of Medicare, with the hope of saving money. It turns out that the federal government pays 14% more for this private form of Medicare than for government provided Medicare so this new law cuts these subsidies. Seniors will still be able to choose between getting their benefits from traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan, but the government will stop wasting billions of dollars by overpaying Medicare Advantage plans.

Myth 8: Extends government benefits to illegal aliens

Reality: Not only are government-sponsored benefits like Medicaid not extended to illegal aliens, but they are not even allowed to buy insurance even if they pay for it with their own money. Illegal immigrants cannot receive any benefits under the new law.

Myth 9: There are accounting gimmicks used to give the appearance that the law is paid for.

Reality: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the official “scorekeeper” of Congress and they have determined that this bill is not only paid for, but reduces deficits over the next two decades by a trillion dollars. While CBO adjusted their estimates upward after the bill became law, even with that adjustment the bill is still paid for whether the bill is analyzed over 3, 5, 10 or 20 years, and reduces the long-term deficit. Benefits start immediately including $5 billion for high-risk pools, help for early retirees, and tax credits to small businesses that pay for health insurance.

Myth 10: The government will decide what care you can receive and will ration your care.

Reality: The law funds research to figure out which treatments are the best for curing diseases and makes that information available to your family doctor, but regardless of this research the law specifically states: “Nothing in section 1181 (the section funding research) shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to deny coverage of items or services under such title solely on the basis of comparative clinical effectiveness research.”. In other words, this law makes sure that doctors and patients have
access to the best information in the world about healthcare options, but leaves those decisions between the doctor and patient.

Transcripts of the audience question and answer portion of the town hall will follow in subsequent posts.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium yesterday morning. Approximately sixty people attended.

Senator McCaskill stood in front of the stage for the entire event.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ….Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. We have an hour and I will try to get to everyone who has a question in that hour. Um, for those of you who have been to our town halls before, I know a number of you have, what we try to do is get all the questions that people have in a basket and we ask someone to draw the questions out, and we get to as many as many of them as we can in the hour. And we usually average between fifteen and twenty questions an hour. Um, so hopefully we’ll get, since this isn’t a very big crowd, hopefully we’ll get to everyone who has a question within the hour.

Um, I’m going to try and spend some time today talking about the budget. And the, as an auditor, the, the cash flow and the bottom line and the fiscal unsustainability of where we are right now in terms of this country and what our challenges are in the future. And, um, to begin that discussion I have a, we have a hand out that, that all of you will get that will have. Have we handed that out already? [voice:  “It just got here.”] Okay. Um, that has these two charts on them , but a number of other charts that talk about the debt and the deficit. Let me start with one fact, uh, and I told some of the folks upstairs, the regional planning commission, that we just had a meeting with, if we took out all of the government spending for foreign aid, education, highways, economic development, agriculture, all of that, and we just decided we were not going to spend any of that money, we still have a debt going forward because of two things. Medicare and Social Security. And the reason we have that debt going forward is because the demographics of our country.  First, we have health care costs that are going up by huge percentages over the last fifteen years. And that contributes to the problem of Medicare. But also, we have a lot more people that are gonna come into the demographic that are entitled to Medicare and to Social Security because the baby boomers are coming, which means we have a lot more people who are entitled to that money. So, obviously it’s important that we look at every single silo of spending in the federal budget…

Two large posters were on display on the stage next to the podium:

Senator McCaskill’s budget priorities?

Hey, we use that CBPP chart all the time!

This “fair taxer” is for you, RBH. I think he’s the same guy from Jefferson City last year. We had a pleasant conversation – he asked me if I’d read the Communist Manifesto. I replied that I had. It turns out that since I support the idea of a progressive income tax he considers me a communist. Go figure. He did give me a copy of his talking points.

…The discretionary spending, which while it’s not the crux of the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem- discretionary spending, both on the defense and the domestic side. Senator Jeff Sessions and I have worked very hard the last year to pass an amendment that would cap the growth of the federal government when it comes to discretionary spending. It exempts out the authorized conflicts we have – our wars that we have that have been authorized by Congress. But it includes the pentagon spending outside of the war and it includes discretionary domestic spending. And it would cap the growth for the next three years. I think that’s an important thing to do. All of the Republicans have voted for this and seventeen of us that are Democrats have voted for this. We are two votes short. I need to find two more Democrats that are willing to buck party leadership, like seventeen of us have, to vote for the cap on spending. I’m optimistic I’ll get two more. I spend part of every week going person to person, in to people’s offices and explaining to them why this is important and why we need to do this. That’s just one piece of it.

Obviously, we’re gonna have a fiscal commission that’s gonna report, this is a bipartisan commission. You have everybody from Paul Ryan and, and Irskine Bowles and everything in between on this fiscal commission that is meeting on a weekly basis right now. And it has to be a bipartisan recommendation because fourteen people have to agree to it. And I believe the breakup of the commission is eight and eight. So, the, the recommendation will have to be made by both Democrats and Republicans as to what we should do going forward as it relates to our entitlement programs in this country.

And I want everybody to remember one thing about the federal government and the way we’ve spent money over the last, well really, frankly, beginning back a long time ago. We have grown, we have grown what the federal government has done to the extent that we now have federal tax dollars going into every single segment of our economy. We have federal tax dollars checks being written in manufacturing, we have federal tax dollar checks being written in agriculture, we have federal tax dollar checks being written in oil and gas, we have federal tax dollars being written in energy, we have federal tax dollars that help support even things like the Internet. Because people who buy on the Internet don’t pay taxes, so unlike if you go down here to the store and you buy something and you’re gonna pay taxes on it, right? You’re gonna pay sales tax. You don’t pay them on the Internet. The government’s decided that we’re not gonna collect sales taxes on the Internet. So the government is trying to encourage that part of our economy by what they do or don’t do as it relates to federal involvement.

So, this notion that the problem with federal spending is all about unemployment insurance or all about food stamps or all about job training programs – that is a luxury we probably can’t afford. I think we need to, with very clear eyes, realize that we have been very, very generous in a lot of places with your money. And all of that needs a very hard look.

The best example I can think of is Medicare D. Do you remember when Medicare D passed?  It was in nineteen, it was two thousand three. Does everybody know what Medicare D is, the program that you get help with prescription drugs? It was passed in two thousand and three. And it was all put on the credit card. There was no attempt made whatsoever to pay for it. None, none. There was no income coming in whatsoever to displace any of the expenditures that were gonna happen under Medicare D. The other interesting thing about Medicare D, there was no means test. So, Warren Buffet, he gets his drugs cheaper with your tax dollars. Does that make sense right now? Should we be writing taxpayer checks to anybody in America regardless of who they are and how much money they have? Can we afford that? Can we afford to be helping people that are billionaires and millionaires and hundred millionaires? Can we afford to have taxpayers help buy their drugs? I don’t know that we can.  So, those are the kinds of things that we’re gonna
to have to take a very hard look at. Um, and I, I, uh, hope that you all have questions.

I think this one [poster on stage] is very interesting ’cause this gives you the deficit in trillions and it gives you the various categories of what is contributing to the increase of the deficit that we’re currently experiencing, beginning in two thousand nine and, and projecting out to two thousand nineteen. And the various colors give you the various things that have been spent. You can take a look at that and realize that some of it is spending and some of it is tax cuts that occurred back under President Bush, um, that has, that has, that is contributing to it.

So, why don’t, um…

Voice: Senator, can we just say something?

Senator McCaskill: No, we’re gonna do this very fairly. [crosstalk] We’re gonna let everybody have an opportunity to talk [crosstalk].

Voices: [crosstalk] Not everybody…   …Can I just say something?

Senator McCaskill: Okay [crosstalk], let me, let me [crosstalk], let…

Voice: Your Internet says that you want to hear us…[crosstalk]

Senator McCaskill:Let me, uh [crosstalk]…

Voice: …hearing us…

Senator McCaskill: [to an aide] Give me the basket. Let me [crosstalk]…

Voice: …on a piece of paper…

Senator McCaskill : I [crosstalk]…

Voice: Why do you feel the need to control us, we’re all adults?

Senator McCaskill: Here’s what we’re gonna do. [crosstalk] Let’s take a show of hands, okay? Let’s try to do this fairly. We [crosstalk], and first of all, [name redacted] I hear from you every day, at least four or five times a day. I hear from you constantly. I have met with you personally. You’ve probably had more input [crosstalk] into my office than anybody in this room times a hundred. And I think it’s fine. [crosstalk] And I welcome it. [crosstalk] But I’m not gonna let you [crosstalk], I am not going to let you [crosstalk] to the extent of other people in here [crosstalk]…

Voices: That was an out and out lie, not four or five times a day… …I don’t see… …Come on…

Senator McCaskill: Okay, all right, I, I will be happy [inaudible]. Go on my tweet page, she’s [redacted] , [redacted] opinions are on there, it’s a public document, you can go on, look at my Twitter page. Here opinions are there. A lot. And believe me, I respect them, I appreciate your opinion [crosstalk] Let me, I absolutely read them. How do you think I know you do it? I read all of them. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but most of the time I read them. I read all of the tweets to me.  Here’s what I’m really trying to do. I don’t want anybody to try and dominate this conversation today. That’s  why I think it’s fair to draw [applause] , to draw the questions out and if, if everyone, if anybody thinks it’s really unfair for us to draw the questions out and get to as many as we can, please raise your hand. If you think it’s unfair. Anybody else besides these three in the front, four, think it’s unfair? Okay, and the rest of you, you think it’s fair we draw as many questions as we can out of the basket during the period of time we’re here? [applause] Okay. We’ll go with that.

Voice: Why didn’t you listen to the majority when they asked you to vote no?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I’m sure that will be a question, I’ll be happy to get to it. Um, I’m gonna, what I do is I call the, the name and then you’re free to stand up and ask the question that you’d like to ask, or if you would like me to read the question or someone else to read the question we can do that also….

Heh. Claire McCaskill has a lot of experience dealing with difficult people at town halls. What was interesting about the exchange was that the vast majority of the crowd was not buying the interruption and the rudeness, nor were they very happy with it. The instigator(s) backed off.

You can’t incite a crowd if they don’t buy your arguments and they don’t like your tactics.

These charts (and the two above) were distributed in a handout to all in attendance.

“Insidious Doctrine” – that works for me, but hypocrisy will also do in a pinch.

Transcripts of the press availability after the event and audience questions during the event will follow.

Previously: What good is that sales tax free back to school shopping weekend if there aren’t enough teachers?

From a Department of Education press release:

CONGRESS PASSES BILL TO SEND MISSOURI $189.7 MILLION TO SUPPORT 3,300 EDUCATION JOBS STATEWIDE

President Signs Bill Into Law

Today, by vote of 247-161, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to provide $10 billion to support an estimated 160,000 education jobs nationwide and another $16 billion to help states fund Medicaid budgets.  The bill allocates $189.7 million to support 3,300 education jobs in Missouri. The U.S. Senate passed the bill last Thursday by a vote of 61-39. Tonight, the President signed the bill into law.

“With the support of the jobs bill, these educators will be helping our children learn instead of looking for work,” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said. “This is the right thing to do for our children, for our teachers, and for our economy….”

[emphasis added]

The vote in the House today:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 518

H R 1586      YEA-AND-NAY      10-Aug-2010      3:26 PM

QUESTION:  On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendment to House Amendment to Senate Amendment

Yeas – 247

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

Skelton

Nays – 161

Akin

Emerson

Graves (MO)

Luetkemeyer

Not Voting – 25

Blunt

Four Missouri Democrats vote “yea”, four Missouri republicans vote “nay”, and Roy Blunt (r) didn’t vote.

From the always perceptive Digby:

…I’m telling you, this is where the vulnerable underbelly of their “just say no” campaign. They are voting against nice, white, suburban middle class Americans this time (along with nice brown and black suburban middle class Americans) with this crusade. And going after teachers, cops and firefighters is a very, very dangerous thing to do. And as I wrote before, the Democrats should throw it right in their face….

We will here, we certainly will.

A counter salvo.

Animal House (1978) “…Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out…”

Previously: Ike Skelton (D) in the 4th Congressional District: right wingnut “Americans for Prosperity” TV ad

The Missouri Democratic Party strikes back:

Announcer: They are the men and women who defend our nation.

[Defending Our Nation]

The soldiers on battlefields and foreign lands.

[Our Soldiers]

Military families awaiting a loved ones return.

[Our Military Families]

And the veterans who’ve offered their all to protect our freedoms and our way of life.

[Our Veterans]

These are the people who count on Ike Skelton every day. The soldier’s congressman, Ike fought to provide our troops with the equipment they needed and to protect the care our veterans depend on.

But what about Vicky Hartzler’s controversial views on the military? Hartzler suggested that women should not be allowed to serve in the military.

[Hartzler suggested women didn’t deserve to wear our nation’s uniform]

[Kansas City Star, 5/6/00]

And opposed legislation that would make it easier for soldiers stationed overseas to vote.

[Opposed making it easier for overseas soldiers to vote]

[1998] Journal of the House of Representatives; Bill Summary HB 1381, 1998]

Vicky Hartzler even voted against reenlistment bonuses for the Missouri National Guard.

[Opposed bonuses for the National Guard]

[1997 Journal of the House of Representatives; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/11/97]

And against a trust fund to provide military honors ceremonies at the funerals of Missouri veterans.

[Senate Bill Summary HCS/SS/SB 208, 1997…]

When our troops are in combat and our veterans are depending on us they deserve someone in their corner. The soldier’s congressman, not just another politician wanting to go to Washington.

[Not Vicky Hartzler]

[disclaimer]

Okay, that’s going to leave a mark.

Right wingnuttia has started their air campaign against Representative Ike Skelton (D). I saw this particular ad on television this evening:

Announcer: Thirty-four years ago Rocky was in movie theaters, Missouri’s economy was humming along, and Ike Skelton first went to Washington. Today Skelton supports the Pelosi agenda ninety-five percent of the time. Under their control spending has skyrocketed, the defecit has tripled, and nearly one in ten Missourians are unemployed. Now they want to pass a new energy tax which could cost a Missouri family thousands. Tell Skelton he works for Missouri, not Nancy Pelosi.

[Paid for by Americans for Prosperity]

Apparently, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) is the personification of evil.

Uh, I was around for the Reagan and Daddy Bush administrations. All hype, no substance, and the economy sucked (except for people in certain tax brackets). It took Bill Clinton to turn it around.

And who was the President from January 2001 to January 2009 who left the big mess? Just asking.

The listing for “Americans for Prosperity” with the Federal Election Commission:

Committee ID: C30001051

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

2111 WILSON BLVD STE 350

ARLINGTON, VA 22201

Treasurer Name:

Committee Designation:   (N/A)

Committee Type:   N/A

“Americans for Prosperity” filed [pdf – click on “Filed Documents”] paperwork with the Missouri Secretary of State’s office on March 26, 2010 as a “Foreign Nonprofit Corporation”. The officers and board, as reported in the filing:

Art Pope, Chairman

Frayday Levy, Director

James C. Miller, Director

Jim Stephenson, Director

Tim Phillips, President

John Flynn, Secretary

John Flynn, Treasurer

I tried scraping around to find an IRS 990 form and have had no luck yet. Chalk that one up to my Internets searching skills.

I did find this interesting little snippet of information at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

LOBID:L002591

Lobbyist’s Name Carl Bearden

Principal(s) listed by Lobbyist

Principal Name/Address/Phone   Status   Date Added   Date Deleted

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY AND FOUNDATION

912 EAST BROADWAY

COLUMBIA MO

D 11/9/2007 7/3/2010

That’s interesting. And what happened on July 3, 2010?

An “Americans for Prosperity Foundation” filed [pdf – click on “Filed Documents”] an annual report with the Missouri Secretary of State’s office on September 11, 2009. The officers and board:

David Koch

Art Pope

Richard Fink

Walter Williams

Debra Gail Humphreys

Tim Phillips, President

John Flynn, Secretary

John Flynn, Treasurer

Well, there are a few names in common.

The 2008 IRS 990 [pdf] form for the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is chock full of interesting information:

1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities Educate citizen leaders on ensuring economic freedom and opportunity.

8 Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h)

Prior Year 5,476,046.

Current Year 7,500,059.

15 Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5-10)

Prior Year 2,124,037.

Current Year 2,234,014.

19 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12

Prior Year -1,072,849.

Current Year -684,765.

4a (Expenses $ 3,048,529. including grants of $ 0) National office – educate citizens in support of restraining federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits.

4b (Expensses $ 3,870,879. including grants of $ 0) State chapters – educate citizens in support of restraining state government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. State chapters are located in Kansas, Texas, North Carolina, California, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Virginia, Colorado, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina, Arizona, Louisiana, and New Hampshire.

Schedule A, Part II, Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)

1 Gits, grants, contributions and membership fees received. (Do not include ‘unusual grants.’)

(a) 2004  1,140,151.

(b) 2005  3,349,739.

(c) 2006  3,954,449.

(d) 2007  5,476,046.

(e) 2008  7,500,059.

(f) Total  21,420,444.

Schedule M, Non-Cash Contributions

4 Books and publications 14,078. Fair market value

9 Securities-Publicly traded 260,614. Fair market value

Schedule O, Supplemental Information to Form 990

Pt VI-A, Line 2 One board member is an employee of a company owned more than 35% by another board member.

[emphasis added]

I wonder, has anything in Representative Ike Skelton’s (D) political career ever not appeared to be all about following the Constitution? Just asking.  

Brian Nieves, running to replace termed out state senator John Griesheimer in Franklin County, an exurb of St. Louis, won a hotly contested Republican primary. But now he has gotten himself in the kind of legal trouble that could conceivably get him tossed off the ballot. Shawn Bell, an aide for one of his Republican opponents, described this scene in a complaint to the police:

In the statement to police that The Associated Press obtained Monday, the 24-year-old Bell said he stopped by Nieves’ campaign after the primary to offer congratulations to an aide there, but Nieves threw him up against a wall. Then, Nieves pulled a black gun out of his pocket and set it on a table and said he was going to kill Bell, according to the statement. Nieves later calmed down and said he wouldn’t kill him or put him in the hospital.

Nieves did not immediately return calls seeking comment left at his home and campaign office.

The statement goes on to say that Nieves checked Bell for a recording wire before head-butting him and slapping him several times. Then he dragged Bell into a kitchen area and ordered him to remove his shirt and get on his knees and beg for forgiveness.

Nieves told Bell everyone needs a “threaurapeutic” fight in which they get beat up, but instead of fighting him, ordered him to walk into an office. Nieves then started reading text messages on Bell’s cell phone and began writing down what some said. Nieves also told Bell to call his [Nieves’] wife and apologize because she was hurt by some of the rumors circulating during the campaign, according to the report.

Presumably the hurtful rumors Nieves referred to were those Sarah Jo mentioned here on Saturday:

[Nieves] won the state senate district 26 seat last Tuesday after a nasty local campaign.  A letter mailed to selected voters from someone named John Franke listed Nieves’ alleged affairs of the heart (or whatever part of the anatomy was involved.)

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrat in that race, George “Boots” Weber, is rooting for Nieves’ legal troubles to topple him.