Previously: Bank of America: Slim the Slimeball

Bank of America: how the scam works

Bank of America: In January, the heat is on

Bank of America foreclosing unjustly, part 3: Major Major

Bank of America, foreclosing unjustly, part 2

Bank of America foreclosing unjustly on Mike and Mary Boehm

A cockeyed optimist might look at the foreclosure problems Mike and Mary Boehm are facing, at the mortgage modification that BoA is offering them, and say, “Look. All the pressure is working!” Indeed, one of the BoA people explained to Mike that a dozen different people–including Russ Carnahan’s office and Chris Koster’s office–have complained about the treatment the Boehms have received. So, since the family is a wee hair short of meeting the MHA standard for modifying a mortgage, the bank is prepared to offer an in-house mortgage modification. Isn’t that wonderful news?

Well, no. Not when you see the terms of the new deal.

Bad for America is offering to lower the monthly payments by $200–and extend the loan from a thirty year contract to a forty year contract. But the interest rate is still more than five percent. If Bad for America weren’t ruining the Boehms’ credit rating by saying that they haven’t been making their mortgage payments, the family could negotiate a better deal than that at another bank.

And the bank could fix their credit. It knows that for well over a year, the Boehms made the payments that a homeowner getting a modified loan would be making–made every one of them on time, because that’s the amount the bank told them to pay. The family has refused to pay all kinds of bogus “fees” that BoA has tried to impose on them–a typical money-grubbing scheme of these upstanding businessmen. But rather than just declare that the Boehms have met their fiscal obligations with BoA and let them negotiate a fair loan at a local bank, Slim the Slimeball Bank of America is offering them this “deal”–just something to report to Carnahan and Koster to make it look as if they give a fig about a congressman’s or an AG’s complaint.

Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America

The past few days at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

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] 1/27/2011

Lathrop & Gage LLP

2345 Grand Boulevard

Kansas City , MO 64108

1/27/2011

$15,000.00

Kessinger/Hunter & Company L.C.

2600 Grand Blvd. suite 700

Kansas City , MO 64108

1/27/2011

$15,000.00

[emphasis added]

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] 1/25/2011

International Association of firefighters

Local 3808 Kansas City Chiefs

1021 Pennsulvania Ave.

Kansas City, MO 64105

1/25/2011

$16,000.00

[emphasis added]

You know, if the April earnings tax vote is successful all the good folks who have contributed money will have do it all over again five years from now. They can thank Rex Sinquefield for that.

Previously:

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 6 (January 24, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 5 (January 18, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 4 (January 13, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 3 (January 9, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 2 (January 4, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011 (January 3, 2011)

Finally, part 2 (December 20, 2010)

Finally (December 14, 2010)

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)

Man linked to Giffords shooting rampage called ‘very disturbed’

….The suspect is unstable, Dupnik said, but the sheriff would not say he is “insane”….

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 341

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES RIDDLE (Sponsor), FRANZ, FUNDERBURK AND COX (Co-sponsors).

1051L.04I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 475.375, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to petitions to remove firearms disqualification.

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

           Section A. Section 475.375, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 571.092, to read as follows:

           571.092. 1. Any individual over the age of eighteen years who has been adjudged incapacitated under chapter 475, who has been involuntarily committed under chapter 632, or who is otherwise subject to the firearms-related disabilities of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(d)(4) or (g)(4) as a result of an adjudication or commitment that occurred in this state may file a petition for the removal of the disqualification to ship, transport, receive, purchase, possess, or transfer a firearm imposed under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(d)(4) or (g)(4) and the laws of this state….

[emphasis in original]

Which would repeal and replace:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 475

Probate Code–Guardianship

Section 475.375

….No individual who has been found guilty by reason of mental disease or defect may petition a court for restoration under this section….

[emphasis added]

Offered without further comment.

When Lee Enterprises bought the Post-Dispatch, it lured many older employees into retiring early with the promise of free health care for life. Now the corporation is dumping those retirees off their health care. It could afford to honor its contract, but the execs have decided they’re … not in the mood.

Fred Jackson, who has cancer, is about to be bankrupt because of their heartlessness and greed.

As Jackson points out, there are no federal laws sanctioning corporations for breaking this kind of contract, as there are for refusing to pay pensions. There should be, because Jackson, even with the help of the Newspaper Guild, which is suing Lee, cannot protect himself against the company for flouting its contracts. He and the other retirees need a government that can predict and protect people against these bunco games.

As it is, Jackson finds himself in a Catch-22 that even the new health care law would not have prevented had it been fully in effect. Am I correct in that assumption? And if I am, could legislation prevent corporations from indulging in this bait and switch? Or are ordinary people, no matter what laws are passed, at the mercy of businesses with in-house legal staff that can fend them off for years or decades?

Opinions, anyone?

Clap louder? Via Twitter:

@clairecmc  Claire McCaskill

Woooohooooo! We did it! The Rules of the United States Senate now prohibit secret holds. The vote was 92 -4. 1 hour ago

@BHIndepMO  Brandon H.

Secret Holds are gone? Now what will Claire McCaskill talk about? kidding kidding @clairecmc ;D #mo 1 hour ago

@BGinKC  Blue Girl

Apparently @clairecmc and I define “victory” differently. I consider what the Democrats failed to do re: Senate reform abject surrender. 41 minutes ago

The results of today’s votes to change the Senate rules:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 1st Session (2011)

Vote Date Issue Question Result Description

00006 27-Jan S.Res. 21 On the Resolution Rejected S. Res. 21 As Amended; A resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide procedures for extended debate.

00005 27-Jan S.Res. 10 On the Resolution Rejected S. Res. 10 As Amended; A resolution to improve the debate and consideration of legislative matters and nominations in the Senate.

00004 27-Jan S.Res. 8 On the Resolution Rejected S. Res. 8; A resolution amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than a three-fifths majority after additional debate.

00003 27-Jan S.Res. 29 On the Resolution Agreed to S. Res. 29; A resolution to permit the waiving of the reading of an amendment if the text and adequate notice are provided.

00002 27-Jan S.Res. 28 On the Resolution Agreed to S. Res. 28; A resolution to establish as a standing order of the Senate that a Senator publicly disclose a notice of intent to objecting to any measure or matter.

[emphasis added]

The vote on stopping secret holds:

Question:  On the Resolution (S. Res. 28 )

Vote Number: 2 Vote Date: January 27, 2011, 04:37 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Resolution Agreed to

Vote Counts: YEAs 92

NAYs 4

Not Voting 4

Blunt (R-MO), Yea  

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

NAYs —4

DeMint (R-SC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Lee (R-UT)

Paul (R-KY)

Not Voting – 4

Feinstein (D-CA)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inouye (D-HI)

McCain (R-AZ)

[emphasis added]

It looks like teabaggers and their sympathizers ain’t fans of transparency.

The vote to waive a required reading of the entire bill on the floor of the Senate (this was used by the republican minority in the last Congress as a delaying tactic):

Question:  On the Resolution (S. Res. 29 )

Vote Number: 3 Vote Date: January 27, 2011, 05:03 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Resolution Agreed to

Vote Counts: YEAs 81

NAYs 15

Not Voting 4

Blunt (R-MO), Yea

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

NAYs —15

Coburn (R-OK)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Hatch (R-UT)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Lee (R-UT)

Paul (R-KY)

Risch (R-ID)

Rubio (R-FL)

Sessions (R-AL)

Thune (R-SD)

Toomey (R-PA)

Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting – 4

Feinstein (D-CA)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inouye (D-HI)

McCain (R-AZ)

Fancy that, obstructionist republicans still want to obstruct.

Then the really big changes pertaining to filibuster reform:

SRES 8 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 8

Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than a three-fifths majority after additional debate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 5, 2011

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mrs. SHAHEEN) submitted the following resolution; which was ordered to lie over, under the rule

RESOLUTION

Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than a three-fifths majority after additional debate.

     Resolved,

SECTION 1. SENATE CLOTURE MODIFICATION.

     Paragraph 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows:

     `2. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: `Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?’ And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn–except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting–then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business.

     `Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o’clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion if an amendment in the first degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate.

     `After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote begins. The thirty hours may be increased by the adoption of a motion, decided without debate, by a three-fifths affirmative vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus agreed upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by the majority and minority leaders or their designees. However, only one motion to extend time, sp
ecified above, may be made in any one calendar day.

     `If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in order and may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the amendment’s sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited to lineation and pagination.

     `No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise.

     `Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule, a Senator may yield all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority floor managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the majority or minority leader, but each Senator specified shall not have more than two hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield such time to other Senators.

     `Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator who has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak only.

     `After cloture is invoked, the reading of any amendment, including House amendments, shall be dispensed with when the proposed amendment has been identified and has been available in printed form at the desk of the Members for not less than twenty-four hours.

     `(b)(1) If, upon a vote taken on a motion presented pursuant to subparagraph (a), the Senate fails to invoke cloture with respect to a measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, subsequent motions to bring debate to a close may be made with respect to the same measure, motion, matter, or unfinished business. It shall not be in order to file subsequent cloture motions on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, except by unanimous consent, until the previous motion has been disposed of.

     `(2) Such subsequent motions shall be made in the manner provided by, and subject to the provisions of, subparagraph (a), except that the affirmative vote required to bring to a close debate upon that measure, motion, or other matter, or unfinished business (other than a measure or motion to amend Senate rules) shall be reduced by three votes on the second such motion, and by three additional votes on each succeeding motion, until the affirmative vote is reduced to a number equal to or less than an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The required vote shall then be an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The requirement of an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn shall not be further reduced upon any vote taken on any later motion made pursuant to this subparagraph with respect to that measure, motion, matter, or unfinished business.’.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS POSTCLOTURE.

     Paragraph 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by inserting at the end the following:

     `After debate has concluded under this paragraph but prior to final disposition of the pending matter, the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader may each offer not to exceed 3 amendments identified as leadership amendments if they have been timely filed under this paragraph and are germane to the matter being amended. Debate on a leadership amendment shall be limited to 1 hour equally divided. A leadership amendment may not be divided.’.

[emphasis added]

Did you get that? If a cloture vote failed (thus continuing the filibuster) debate continues and after a time subsequent cloture votes can be taken, with the number of votes required to stop the filibuster dropped by three on each subsequent vote until only a simple majority is needed to proceed.

Well, that rules change failed:

Question:  On the Resolution (S. Res. 8 )

Vote Number: 4 Vote Date: January 27, 2011, 05:20 PM

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

Vote Counts: YEAs 12

NAYs 84

Not Voting 4

Blunt (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Nay

YEAs —12

Begich (D-AK)

Blumenthal (D-CT)

Durbin (D-IL)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Lieberman (ID-CT)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Udall (D-NM)  

Not Voting – 4

Feinstein (D-CA)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inouye (D-HI)

McCain (R-AZ)

[emphasis added]

What were you thinking, Claire? And Joe Lieberman was a good guy?

GOP Senator Roy Blunt has been appointed to the Senate Appropriations, Commerce, Rules and Intelligence Committees. I suppose they have to put him somewhere and the GOP has never seemed to be especially attuned to irony. What to expect from Blunt in his role on Appropriations? There’s a hint in this tweet from earlier today:

After Senate Dems failed to put up a budget for last 2 yrs the serious business of cutting government spending will take place in Approps.

Am I the only one who thinks it’s just too rich to hear talk of spending cuts from one of the congressional leaders responsible for pushing the deficit to astronomical heights in the first place? Remember when Daddy Blunt wholeheartedly endorsed two extravagant wars while helping to enact irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy? And don’t forget his contributions to the lax oversight that led to the financial meltdown that plunged us into the debt basement we’re trying to climb out of.

Somehow, despite Blunt’s deficit-cutting fervor, I doubt that he’ll be going after all those taxpayer subsidies that are going to very rich oil giants, or, closer to home-sweet-home, the farm subsidies that are near and dear to his rural constituency. One thing we can be sure of, after all his years in Washington, when it comes to cost-cutting, Daddy Blunt knows who butters his great big slice of GOP bread – and who doesn’t matter at all.

There’s been a flurry of campaign contribution activity reported for Attorney General Chris Koster (D) at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Report of Contributions Received > $500 During Legislative Session

C031159 01/27/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Michael J. Angelides 57 Crestwood Dr. Edwardsville IL 62025 1/26/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 01/27/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER David C. Bamper 3805 Bolder Dr. Edwardsville IL 62025 1/26/2011 $2,500.00

C031159 01/27/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER John A. Barnerd 2828 Ironwood Dr. Alton IL 62002 1/26/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 01/27/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Perry J. Browder 2351 Larkdale Dr. Glenview IL 60025 1/26/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 01/27/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Ted N. Gianaris P.O. Box 886 Edwardsville IL 62025 1/26/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 01/27/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Gregg A. Kirkland 12 Goshen Woods Est. Edwardsville IL 62025 1/26/2011 $2,500.00

C031159 01/26/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Alison Hershewe 3902 Old Orchard Rd. Joplin MO 64804 1/25/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/26/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Onder, Shelton, O’Leary & Peterson, L.L.C. 110 E. Lockwood St Louis MO 63119 1/25/2011 $2,500.00

C031159 01/20/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Comcast Financial Agency Corporation 1701 JFK Boulevard Philadelphia PA 19103 1/19/2011 $2,500.00

C031159 01/18/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER John J Bommarito 4190 N. Service Rd. St Peters MO 63376 1/17/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 01/13/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER AT&T Missouri Employee Political Action Committee 909 Chestnut Room 4107 St Louis MO 63101 1/13/2011 $2,500.00

C031159 01/12/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Ironworkers Political Education Fund 1750 New York Ave Suite 400 Washington DC 20006 1/12/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/11/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Matt Koster 2500 Town And Country Ln St Louis MO 63131 1/10/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/11/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Matt Koster 2500 Town And Country Ln St Louis MO 63131 1/10/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/11/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Matt Koster 2500 Town And Country Ln St Louis MO 63131 1/10/2011 $1,000.00

[emphasis added]

Reported today:

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

C031159 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER [pdf] 1/27/2011

Simmons Attorneys at Law

707 Berkshire Blvd. P.O. Box 521

East Alton, IL 62024 1/26/2011

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Reported nine days ago:

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

C031159 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER [pdf] 1/18/2011

James B Nutter Sr

1201 W. 66th St.

Kansas City , MO 64113

1/17/2011

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s a total of $77,500.00. Put that in perspective. It’s chicken feed compared to what State Auditor Tom Schweich (r-rock star) did in his bid to unseat Susan Montee (D).

Does anyone think the republicans won’t dump an ungodly amount of cash on whatever sock puppet they select to challenge Chris Koster?

Some time ago I wrote a post about the colossal arrogance of the Tea Party and other members of the 27 percenters who insist on usurping the label “We the People” and employing it in almost every other sentence to express their minority demands.  Missouri’s GOP-dominated legislature shares that We-the-Teople arrogance. They too seem to have an outsized conception of their importance, specifically as it pertains to the will of the rest of the people in the state. I am referring, of course to their willingness to use the power that we have vested in them to undercut popularly passed ballot propositions.

Exhibit one: the hearings that began yesterday to repeal or amend out of existence Proposition B, the puppy mill bill that passed with a 51.6% majority. Opponents of this measure had ample time to make their case and failed. Cue Missouri legislators to ride to the rescue of the Puppy Millers and the deluded farmers who were led to believe that humane treatment of dogs is the first step on the slippery slope towards enforced vegetarianism.

Just as egregious a show of contempt for the will of the people was perpetrated earlier this week when the State Legislature’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) voted to gut an important component of Proposition C, the Missouri Renewable Electricity Standard that was passed in 2008 with a 66% majority. The proposition mandated that 15% of the energy provided by state utilities come from renewable energy sources.

A PUC implementation that JCAR is attempting to circumvent provides that those clean energy sources be located within or near Missouri and was intended to spur growth of clean energy businesses within the state along with the concomitant green jobs. God forbid that the Missouri GOP show any concern for innovation and a new source of jobs; we all know that utilities and their profits come before people, right?

There are precedents for this disregard of the public will. You surely remember when Missourians said “No, thank you” to concealed carry gun laws in 1999. Since rejection doesn’t sit well with the NRA and its pet Missouri legislators, the General Assembly overruled the proposition and in 2003 passed a concealed carry law.

Opponents of these measures all seem to think that overriding the will of the people of the state is just jim-dandy because the majority they are disregarding is mostly urban and evidently not aware of some deeper truths known only to those in the boonies. If you look online, you will find innumerable newspaper articles where lawmakers justify reversing the will of the majority because rural areas voted overwhelmingly for mistreatment of dogs, a wild west gun culture, or are worried about the possibility that energy prices might go up (which they most certainly will no matter what  happens with Proposition C rules and regulations). For example, this quote from KPSR’s coverage of the Proposition B repeal effort is typical:

… the majority of those passing votes came from a minority of counties. While most lawmakers who spoke, even Stouffer, aren’t dead-set on eliminating Prop B, they say the will of the people in rural Missouri is proof enough it, at the very least, needs tweaking.

Somehow, I bet that if I were in a position to do the research, I’d  find that many members of the rural minority that failed to prevail in the case of Proposition B correspond to the 16% of Missourians who voted for that other Prop C and against the health care mandate last April. In April the minority prevailed because few Missourians, only 23%, turned out to vote.* Fair enough. But what I want to know is why this particular minority matters more than the rest of us when they don’t prevail? They matters so much that, on the basis of the April Prop. C vote, lawmakers are trying to force the Attorney General of the State, Chris Koster, to join a frivolous and potentially expensive suit against the Affordable Care Act

Never mind that the pros and cons of all these potential laws were fully debated before the vote and that the people of the state had plenty of information and time to make up their minds. What this blatant disregard for the democratic process says to me is that those of us in St. Louis and Kansas City are second class citizens. There’s got to be some reason why these rural lawmakers feel free to explicitly spit in the faces of voters. There must be some way to demand respect for the principles of democracy in this state.

* “only 23%” added.