What do you turn your thermostat down to at night in this frigid weather? 65? 60? 8? Oh, pardon me. That last option is only for homeless people. Nobody knows exactly how many of them in St. Louis slept outside last weekend, but one way to gauge it is to note that fifty to sixty people showed up each night at the Centenary Methodist Church downtown because they knew that members of The Winter Outreach program, which operates out of that location, has been shuttling a few of them to the rare shelter beds that are available aside from Larry Rice’s New Life Evangelical. Some nights a dozen beds were available; other nights, maybe twenty. And those beds were only available on nights when the temperature was predicted to be 22 degrees or lower. (Do you ever set your thermostat at 25?)

Twelve available beds or twenty meant that at least forty people huddled in sleeping bags or under blankets somewhere. And that’s besides all the people who didn’t show up at Centenary. So Mo of MoKaBe’s Coffee House on Grand has been agitating for the city to make good on its promise to get a permanent winter shelter up and running. And by agitating, I don’t mean a daily call to City Hall. I mean, more like hourly.

Monday night, the city fulfilled its promise and opened a fifty bed shelter down near the water tower at Blair and Grand. What great news that is for these homeless people, especially since it will be open every night until March, and those who arrive there this early in the season can reserve a permanent spot for the winter.

I showed up at Centenary Tuesday night to see the Winter Outreach program in action. Sixty people crowded into a small chapel, most of them with a large trash bag full of their belongings and perhaps a backpack as well. They were killing time by listening to a Salvation Army worker talk about his faith and the importance of love. They were patient and polite, partly because that was a better arrangement than waiting outside in the cold and dark until 6:30–which is what they had been doing on previous evenings until the drivers were ready to take them to a shelter. Finally a social worker named Sarah arrived and arranged a lottery for the twelve beds available at Metro Community Church. That location was popular because it’s a known entity to these folks and because it’s not all that far from Centenary. Sarah explained that the city shelter has a downside: it’s several miles from the downtown locations that offer food during the day. These people have empty pockets, in other words no money for bus tickets. And the word that evening was that there would be some bus tickets

available but that there was no guarantee that a person who stayed there would be able to get back downtown.

That left Lorenzi, a man who didn’t get a Lottery spot at MCC with a decision to make: he had to be downtown the next morning, not just for food and medical reasons, but because he’s getting tutored in math every morning so that he can pass the entrance exam for the electrician training program at Ranken Technical School.

When I left, Lorenzi hadn’t decided yet whether to sleep on the street or take his chances on getting a bus ticket at the city shelter. He pulled a sleeping bag out of his trash bag and explained that “all you need is a sleeping bag and about four covers, and you can prob’ly make it out here, as long as you sleep in your clothes. Gonna be mighty cold if you gotta get up and go to the bathroom, but ….”

If you’re interested in preventing the Lorenzis of the city from having to make such a tough choice, you can contribute some money for bus tickets. Mo Costello, owner of MoKaBe’s Coffee House, is the treasurer for an effort to collect funds for this purpose. You can make a check out to MoKaBe’s Inc. and send it to:

MoKaBe’s Coffee House

3606 Arsenal

St. Louis, MO 63106

The stand alone repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has passed the U.S. House:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638

H R 2965      YEA-AND-NAY      15-Dec-2010      5:24 PM

QUESTION:  On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment

BILL TITLE: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010

—- YEAS    250 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

—- NAYS    175 —

Akin

Blunt

Emerson

Graves (MO)

Luetkemeyer

Skelton

Breaking News: House passes “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal

….This is “an imposition of somebody’s social agenda,” said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri. It’s an “eclipse of reason, an eclipse of common sense….”

I wonder if they think teh gay is contagious? Or just bigotry?

There’s nothing new under the sun:

“….going concerns, accustomed through many years to the present system” of segregation, “no experiments should be tried…at this critical time….”

“…The Army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success. Experiments to meet the wishes and demands…for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat…”

Social agenda? Where have we heard that before?

No, of course it hasn’t.

But with the two votes today in the Senate concerning the continuation of dubya’s (now Obama’a) windfall tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires I don’t particular care to hear Claire McCaskill’s (D) future lectures to us on the evils of the deficit.

First up was the vote to suspend the rules to consider Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I) amendment to restrict the tax cut to the first $250,000.00 for everyone.

Senate Sends Tax Bill to House

….The amendment would have struck an estate tax proposal to exempt all but the richest estates. Sanders suggested returning to estate tax rates in effect in 2009 for two years. H [sic] would have exempted the first $3.5 million of an estate from taxation and imposrf [sic] a 45 percent estate tax rate on the value of estates above $3.5 million.

The Sanders amendment would have replaced the payroll tax holiday with a one year extension of the Make Work Pay Credit — a proposal that will provide more tax relief to those who need it most while not threatening the solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

Sanders’ amendment also would have provided a $250 payment to some 58 million senior citizens, veterans and persons with disabilities.  Unless Congress acts, senior citizens will be going without a cost of living increase for a second year in a row at a time when the prices they pay for prescription drug and health care are soaring….

The vote:

Question:  On the Motion (Motion to Suspend Rule XXII Re: Sanders Amdt. 4809 )

Vote Number: 275 Vote Date: December 15, 2010, 12:42 PM

Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Motion Rejected

Measure Number: H.R. 4853 (Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III )

Measure Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 43

NAYs 57

Bond (R-MO), Nay  

McCaskill (D-MO), Nay  

Well, isn’t that special?

And the final vote on the deal, perpetuating dubya’s tax cut windfall for the top 2%:

Question:  On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to the Senate Amdt. with Amdt. No. 4753 to H.R. 4853 )

Vote Number: 276 Vote Date: December 15, 2010, 01:02 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 4853 (Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III )

Measure Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 81

NAYs 19

Bond (R-MO), Yea  

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

Gee, do you think Jim Talent’s (r) votes would have been any different?

Do us a favor. Spare us those lectures on the deficit. Otherwise, you’re just telling us it’s raining.  

You’ve got to believe that the surfeit of zombie movies of late is no coincidence.

Senator Jack Goodman (r) prefiled SJR 3, which would go on the ballot if passed by the General Assembly, to assert “sovereignty” for Missouri when it comes to federal law.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3 [pdf]

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR GOODMAN.

Pre-filed December 1, 2010, and ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary.

0132S.01I

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article IV of the Constitution of Missouri relating to state sovereignty.

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article IV of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article IV, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 54, to read as follows:

Section 54. 1. The attorney general shall seek appropriate relief on behalf of the state and its officers to preserve and protect the state’s sovereignty when the attorney general determines in his or her discretion that such suit is necessary and proper or when the attorney general is directed to seek such relief by an executive order of the governor, a concurrent resolution of the general assembly, or a petition of the legal voters as provided in subsection 2 of this section that expresses the belief that the federal government has taken steps that require the state or a state officer to enforce a provision of federal law that lies outside Congress’s enumerated powers and intrudes on the sovereignty reserved to the states by the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

2. The people may direct the attorney general to seek relief by initiative. Initiative petitions directing the attorney general to seek relief against the federal government shall be signed by eight percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state. The total vote for governor at the general election last preceding the filing of such petition shall be used to determine the number of legal voters necessary to sign the petition. In submitting the same to the people, the secretary of state and all other officers shall be governed by general laws. Every such petition shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than six months before the election and shall specify in a clear and concise manner the particular federal action for which the attorney general is directed to seek appropriate relief. Any petition approved under this section shall be passed by a majority of the votes cast thereon.

Ah, nullification.

Batshit crazy republicans (ah, a redundancy) will think this is a good idea as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House. Once that changes they’ll go strangely silent on the matter.

Judicial Supremacy and the Supremacy Clause

January 4, 2006 | Scott Lemieux

….Allowing states to selectively nullify federal law has been generally abandoned for good reason, and Baude’s legal theory was thankfully and permanently buried by the Civil War. Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote that “I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an act of Congress void. I do think the union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several states.” He was right. Somebody has to be able to provide authoritative resolutions to conflicts arising from competing legal interpretations between different levels of government, and the Constitution logically locates the resolution of disputes about federal law in federal institutions.

[emphasis added]

You think that’ll stop delusional tenthers from trying?

Making the U.S. Senate actually work via changing the rules, explained in 90 seconds:

Narrator: This legislative summary is brought to you by Main Street Insider. Today we examine the “constitutional option” as proposed by Senator Tom Udall which is a mechanism that opens the door to changing filibuster rules. The Senate’s reputation as the place where bills go to die is becoming increasingly appropriate since two thousand seven.

David Waldman: Major legislation used to face a filibuster about eight to ten percent of the the time as far back as the sixties. These days seventy plus percent of the bills and nominations coming to the floor face a filibuster which really means that the Senate has just become paralyzed.  

Narrator: In response Senator Udall has proposed using a procedural mechanism that allows a simple majority to end a debate on rules changes at the beginning of a new Congress instead of the usual two thirds super majority.

This so-called “constitutional option”, if approved, would apply only on the first legislative day of the session and would require the President of the Senate’s approval. It does not contain any substantive changes to the rules themselves and simply provides an avenue to approve the rules with fifty-one votes.

Supporters say that filibuster reform is crucial to meeting the nation’s many pressing concerns and believe this option presents the best hope to change the rules.

Senator Tom Udall: With the hundreds of bills passed by the House the senate’s to do list keeps growing. the obstruction is irresponsible and far too easily influenced by the special interests.

Narrator: Opponents argue that the filibuster is a longstanding and important tradition that should not be jettisoned so casually.

The measure is expected to be brought up by Senator Udall in the first day of the new session, January fifth, and will require a majority vote, or fifty votes plus Vice President Biden to pass….

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Twitter flurry on republican obstruction and filibuster reform (December 10, 2010)

….And, of course, we chimed in:

@MBersin @clairecmc Then do something about changing the rules in January. #MO 44 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And Blue Girl:

@BGinKC @clairecmc And if the Ds don’t change the rules 1st thing Jan 5th, it stops being their fault and starts being yours. #thatsjustthewayitis 41 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And someone else:

@DoctorD71 @clairecmc You guys need to vote to change the Senate rules to stop the R roadblock. 39 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to clairecmc

….

Well, Claire, which side are you on?

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Date Established:12/13/2010

COMMITTEE: MECID:A101430

SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE

The campaign to preserve the earnings tax which will be on the April ballot in Kansas City has started raising money:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

A101430 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE [pdf] 12/13/2010

Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerece

2600 Commerece Tower

911 Main Street

KCMO 64105

12/13/2010

$50,000.00

Civic Council

1200 Main # 230

KCMO 64105

12/13/2010

$50,000.00

Burns & McDonnell

9400 Ward Parkway

KCMO 64114

12/13/2010

$50,000.00

DST Systems INC

333 W 11th street

KCMO 64105

12/13/2010

$50,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s a good start.

It’s probably a little more than irritating for them that a billionaire is making them spend some serious cash.

Previously:

HB 26: an attempt to fix some of the mess of Proposition A (December 3, 2010)

Where’s Kansas City on fundraising for the 2011 earnings tax vote? (November 27, 2010)

St. Louis leads the fundraising way on the April 2011 earnings tax vote (November 16, 2010)

Any bets that the Royals follow through for Kansas City? (November 13, 2010)

…and they’re damn proud of it.

Spotted today in traffic in eastern Jackson County:

At Pharyngula:

The Creation “Museum”

Category: Creationism

Posted on: August 10, 2009 2:08 PM, by PZ Myers

….This was not a museum: it is a haunted house. It is a carnival ride. It shows throughout in the layout – the rubes are supposed to be shuttled through efficiently, get their little thrills, and exit so the next group can make the trip. If they’d had a few million more, I imagine they would have invested in tracks and little cars and turned it into the Creation Ride. The creators of this place wouldn’t recognize a museum if they woke up in the middle of the Smithsonian on a bed of museum maps with a giant sign saying “MUSEUM” in front of their faces and an army of docents shouting directions at them. They seem to have gotten all their information about how a museum works by visiting Disneyland….

“Prepare to believe.”

Wasn’t that one of the punch lines for a paranoia drenched science fiction television show in the 90s? Just asking.

The deal to continue dubya era tax cuts managed to get 83 votes today to get past a filibuster. Fancy that. It appears that only republican legacy legislation can easily pass that hurdle in the U.S. Senate.

Question:  On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to Senate Amdt. with Amdt. No. 4753 )

Vote Number: 272 Vote Date: December 13, 2010, 03:01 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 4853 (Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III )

Measure Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 83

NAYs 15

Not Voting 2

NAYs —15

Bingaman (D-NM)

Brown (D-OH)

Coburn (R-OK)

DeMint (R-SC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Feingold (D-WI)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Hagan (D-NC)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Sanders (I-VT)

Sessions (R-AL)

Udall (D-CO)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

Any bets on the republicans counting this as part of the 95% of the time that Claire McCaskill voted with Obama for their 2012 campaign attack ads? Just asking.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r-121) prefiled HB 45, a bill to modify a statute with the catchy republican title: “Big Government Get Off My Back Act”. The proposed bill has an interesting addition:

Any federal mandate implemented by the state shall be subject to statutory authorization of the general assembly.

[emphasis in original]

Anyone have an explanation for that clause? Just asking.

There was a letter to the editor about Denny Hoskins (r) last Friday in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

12/10/2010 11:53:00 AM

Criticism hits appointee

Letter to the Editor

[….]

It appears that the way to get ahead in the Missouri Republican-controlled legislature is to try to avoid taxes and use unethical means to get elected.

These unethical tactics were used against a fine, upstanding and talented young lady. He should be ashamed of what he did, but it seemed to pay off.

The Republicans in the Missouri legislature must certainly condone these tactics, because he was appointed chairman of an important committee. God help us.

Representative Hoskins (r) was appointed by Speaker-elect Steve Tilley (r) to be chair of a House committee. Avoiding taxes and unethical means? Really?

Back to the full text of the bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 45

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES HOSKINS (Sponsor), ALLEN, NANCE, MOLENDORP, ZERR, NOLTE, POLLOCK AND SCHARNHORST (Co-sponsors).

0145L.02I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 1.310, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to small businesses.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 1.310, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 1.310 and 143.173, to read as follows:

1.310. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Big Government Get Off My Back Act”.

2. Any federal mandate implemented by the state shall be subject to statutory authorization of the general assembly.

3. No user fees imposed by the state of Missouri shall increase for the [four-year] five-year period beginning on August 28, 2009, unless such fee increase is to implement a federal program administered by the state or is a result of an act of the general assembly. For purposes of this section, “user fee” does not include employer taxes or contributions, assessments to offset the cost of examining insurance or financial institutions, any health-related taxes approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or any professional or occupational licensing fees set by a board of members of that profession or occupation and required by statute to be set at a level not to exceed the cost of administration.

[3.] 4. For the [four-year] five-year period beginning on August 28, 2009, any state agency proposing a rule as that term is defined in subdivision (6) of section 536.010, other than any rule promulgated as a result of a federal mandate, or to implement a federal program administered by the state or an act of the general assembly, shall either:

(1) Certify that the rule does not have an adverse impact on small businesses consisting of fewer than [twenty-five] fifty full- or part-time employees; or

(2) Certify that the rule is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of the public; or

(3) Exempt any small business consisting of fewer than [twenty-five] fifty full- or part-time employees from coverage.

[4.] 5. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prevent or otherwise restrict an agency from promulgating emergency rules pursuant to section 536.025, or from rescinding any existing rule pursuant to section 536.021.

143.173. 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Deduction”, an amount subtracted from the taxpayer’s Missouri adjusted gross income to determine Missouri taxable income for the tax year in which such deduction is claimed;

(2) “Small business”, any small business as described in section 1.310;

(3) “Taxpayer”, any small business subject to the income tax imposed in this chapter.

2. In addition to all deductions listed in this chapter, for all taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, and ending on or before December 31, 2014, a taxpayer shall be allowed a deduction for each new full-time job created by the small business in the taxable year. The deduction amount shall be as follows:

(1) Ten thousand dollars for each new full-time job created with an annual salary of at least the average annual county wage; or

(2) Twenty thousand dollars for each new full-time job created with an annual salary of at least the average annual county wage if the small business also offers new employee health insurance and pays at least fifty percent of the health insurance premiums of all full-time employees.

3. The department of revenue shall establish the procedure by which the deduction provided in this section may be claimed, and may promulgate rules to implement the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536 and, if applicable, section 536.028. This section and chapter 536 are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly under chapter 536 to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2011, shall be invalid and void.

4. Under section 23.253 of the Missouri sunset act:

(1) The provisions of the new program authorized under this section shall automatically sunset on December thirty-first three years after the effective date of this section unless reauthorized by an act of the general assembly; and

(2) If such program is reauthorized, the program authorized under this section shall automatically sunset on December thirty-first three years after the effective date of the reauthorization of this section; and

(3) This section shall terminate on September first of the calendar year immediately following the calendar year in which the program authorized under this section is sunset.

[emphasis in original]

Because deregulation has worked out so well in the past.