Senator Claire McCaskill (D) issued a statement in response to President Obama’s State of the Union address:

McCaskill Statement on the State of the Union

January 25, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill made the following statement following President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address:

“The president touched on many issues that I know are on the minds of Missourians. I appreciated his words about the need to deal with our deficit, but I don’t think his proposal to freeze spending goes far enough and I had hoped he would endorse the Sessions-McCaskill amendment. I was glad to hear that he’s on board with my efforts to stop earmarks – it’s a small, but symbolic way Congress can signal to the American people that we are serious about bringing fiscal responsibility to Washington. The president also is right that we need better civility and bipartisanship in Washington to tackle the tough challenges facing our nation, so I hope everyone takes that message to heart. The tone in the Capitol tonight was optimistic – this is a great country and we have a great future ahead of us.”

###

[emphasis added]

From December 15, 2010:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): evidently any concern about the deficit has been alleviated

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….

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

To be fair:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City, part 2 (January 20, 2011)

….Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, um, a lot of what is happening with the deficit is in fact the economic downturn and the costs associated with the economic downturn, both the social net, the social safety net costs, unemployment benefit costs, but also, the fact that revenue is down. Um, revenue is down to the government because there’s been less income.  So, it is, that’s been a huge part of it. The Bush tax cuts obviously were a huge part of it. Um, I would have liked very much to see us raise the top rate, uh, personal income tax rate on the, on the top bracket. I think that there is a chance we will still do that before the next election. Um, you know it’s, it, they were extended for two years and it will be up to the members of Congress do decide whether to debate that and make changes as it relates to that, um, even before twenty twelve. And I think that there’s a number of us that are willing to have that debate before the election and support raising the marginal rate on, especially on your second million dollars. Um, you know, let everybody have the same tax rate on their first million, but on your second million could you do three percent more, the same rate that you had in the nineties when everyone was doing very well?

Michael Bersin: And, and part of the frustration of that is that in some, some cases, you know, people are, are using, uh, people’s unfamiliarity with what marginal tax rates actually are and the history, you know, the past history of marginal tax rates and it’s harder to explain. So, you know, is, is this sort of a, a, an option to, to basically to try to teach people about this?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I think that’s part of it. I think, um, the other part about the, the deficit is looking at all the goodies in the tax code….

As if any republicans will allow Congress let the tax giveaway for the top 1% expire at any time before the 2012 election? Even attempting to discuss it will lead to a severe political clubbing from the republicans, their enablers, and the Mighty Wurlitzer. Let’s face it, the administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress let themselves get rolled. They kicked the can down the road.

Otherwise, you’re just telling us it’s raining.

Attorney General Chris Koster seems to be leaning toward joining Missouri’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate.

Acknowledging the will of the state legislature, a vote by the people, and his fiduciary duty, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster inched closer to challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care law.

“We haven’t finally formulated what the plans are,” said Koster, following a question by Missouri Watchdog about his plans regarding the health care law during a press conference Tuesday in St. Louis.

Koster said his office is likely to do “something that recognizes the will of the legislature and recognizes that Missouri state law has now adopted” Proposition C, a legislatively-referred state statute, which challenges the federal health insurance mandate, passed by voters in August.

“Our office has a fiduciary duty to defend Missouri law. What we do, how we do it, is something that we are actively reviewing,” he said. “There’s a lot of subtleties and research that has to be gone through.”

We don’t know whether Koster thinks the mandate is sensible or constitutional. What we do know is that he’s caught in the middle on this one, and the lawyer in him argues that as the holder of a nonpartisan office, the general counsel to the state government, he is bound to pay attention to what the legislature and our laws require or urge him to do. Proposition C sought to have Missouri opt out of the insurance mandate. To that has been added the weight of SR27, urging him to join the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

I had hinted that Koster might not feel bound to join the lawsuit even if it passed:

My hope is that they [the senators] will act very judiciously. … And so we’re going to wait and see what they do on the floor. I think that, my belief is that, this is not unanimous within the full Republican caucus, that there are Republicans who don’t think that this the right time to pass such a resolution. And so we’re waiting to see what happens.

Republicans passed it, but only 10 of the 26 Rs in the Senate even stayed for the vote. So we have 10 out of 33 senators resoundingly in favor of SR27. That’s less than a third.  

But I was too optimistic. Apparently his statement only meant: Maybe the Republicans will be judicious enough not to pass SR27.

I was similarly naive to think that Koster might not feel bound by the Prop C vote. Bunnie Gronborg, a St. Louis health care activist testified at the hearing last Tuesday. She told the committee, and after the hearing told Koster, that the turnout was so meager last August that, although the vote was almost 3 to 1 in favor of Prop C, the stats show that those voting for it constituted only 16 percent of Missouri voters. As someone who had done a lot of phone banking before the primaries, she knew that more than a few Democrats were confused about the wording of Prop C because she spent time explaining to many of them that if they favored reform they’d want to vote no.

Here’s what she said about her exchange with Koster:

Now when I told that to the Attorney General, he pointed out in a nice way that those people bothered to show up and vote or something like that. I know he has a point, but mine was that you don’t pander to 16%.

I’m certainly no expert on Missouri constitutional law. And I do understand Koster’s point about the nonpartisan role of an attorney general. But I also know that the legislation passed last Wednesday was a nonbinding resolution. You know, nonbinding, as in nonbinding. It’s a strong request–made by ten Republican senators.

Koster fears, perhaps rightly, that Republicans will yank the purse strings closed on his office if he ignores them. That could happen, I guess. But here’s something else that’s almost sure to happen. Democrats are going to be royally pissed off if he does this.

Many of them already refer to him as Koster the Imposter.

Yesterday (January 25th) I witnessed  “democracy” in action as members of the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee listened to what was supposed to be a public hearing on the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act passed by voters in November.  The whole show was scripted and a ringer played the key role.   Rep. Jason Smith introduced himself as an ex-officio member of the committee representing “the leadership.”  One can only assume he means the Republican leaders of the House  – or – the “leadership” of the Big Money Interests behind the attacks on the Humane Society of the United States.   It’s hard to know for whom the Jason Smiths of this country work  since the corporate moneybags and their minions in government enjoy an incestuous relationship that benefits both groups.

There have been at least seven bills so far introduced in the Missouri General Assembly to either repeal or seriously weaken the law passed by almost 52% of the voters in Missouri in November.  Keep in mind that, when state reps and senators win by 52% of the vote, they consider it a landslide and the outcome of the election is never challenged.   But, evidently, this same rule doesn’t apply when the old boys on the Ag Committee don’t get what they want.  They obviously didn’t see the big neon signs flashing over their heads yesterday spelling out  HIPPOCRITTERS.

Committee chair Tom Loehner (R-112) called the meeting to order exactly at noon and laid down the groundrules – no clapping, no booing, no outbursts, no spitting on the floor, (oops, sorry – I was caught up in the excitement of the moment.)

He asked for a show of hands how many for and against Prop B.  The room was packed and an overflow crowd stood in the hallways.  The count was easily 80% in favor of Prop B.  Some of us wore buttons saying “Defend Prop B.”   Some had stickers saying “The Voters Have Spoken.” Although the committee members were totally against Prop B and made that very clear, they had to face a room full of people who see them as stooges for corporate agriculture.  

Chairman Loehner decided to start the hearing with  HB 131 although two other bills were listed as being considered as well.  The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Stanley Cox (R-118 which is the Sedalia area) went first and listed all of his reasons for hating the law passed by the voters.  It’s hard to summarize his points because he spoke of “things” in the law that veterinarians wouldn’t support and how his bill, unlike Prop B, is based on “science.”  His central concern seemed to be that using the term puppy mill wasn’t fair to legitimate breeders.  Committee members asked Cox why he wanted to remove the section of the bill that says drinking water for the dogs had to be “debris free”?   His answer was that, in his experience, dogs are messy and can get their food in their water bowls.   How’s that for sound “science”??

Co-sponsor of HB 131, Chuck Gatschenberger (R-13) testified that he didn’t like the name “puppy mill” either and that the new law is an infringement on the right of breeders to make money and pay their bills.  He and most of the committee members kept referring to dogs and puppies as “the product” to sell, and his point was that “legitimate” breeders (there’s that word again) would be put out of business.  When all the breeders go bankrupt, they will lose their homes and have no way to support their families.   Seriously.

Rep. Joe Aull (D-26) asked Cox why he wanted to increase the number of females being bred from 50 to 100.   Cox said he just picked the number out of the air.   Hmmmm……

The first outside witness in favor of HB 131 was Karen Strange of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners.  She said her organization’s goal is to protect animal owners from the “animal rights movement.”  She warned the committee that there is an insidious plot by animal activists to” change the face of agriculture”

This theme was repeated several times during the two hours of testimony.  The Humane Society of the United States is the bogeyman in the eyes of opponents of our new law.  First they come to protect puppies and dogs, but then they want free range chickens and some of those other crazy things that are going on in places like California (horrors !)  Eventually, there will be no meat available to Americans and civilization will come to an end.  No, really.  This is what they believe, and I think the folks in the audience who hate Prop B honestly think this is what will happen to our country if we improve the care standards at dog breeding operations in Missouri.

Committee member Ed Schieffer (R-11) tried to get a handle on how many actual breeding operations there are in Missouri.  He said he had heard there were a little over 1400 “legitimate” breeders despite the fact that the Prop B supporters keep saying there are over 3000 puppy mills in Missouri.  The question came down to licensed vs. unlicensed breeders, but this is not as clear cut as it sounds either.  Evidently,some licensed breeders prefer to ignore the care standards and just accept the warnings and citations by the state inspectors until they eventually just give up trying to be licensed.   It’s kind of like people who own guns aren’t criminals until they shoot somebody.    When asked whether licensed breeders could meet the new requirements in Prop B,  Strange answered that she doubted any of them could meet the standards.

The first witness in support of Prop B and opposed to SB 131 was Tim Rickey, from Franklin County, who works for the ASPCA and has been in the animal protection business for over 20 years.  He did a very good job of explaining the problem and why a citizens’ initiative was necessary to get Prop B passed.  He offered the committee copies of reports from multiple sources describing the horrible conditions where animals suffer all their lives.  He quoted from a Better Business Bureau report as well as reports by the state auditor’s office over the years and the Department of Agriculture’s own record keeping and summary reports.  Rickey emphasized that it is not true that bad conditions exist only at unlicensed facilities.   He also appealed to the committee members not to go against the will of the voters. The one thing I wish Rickey had offered was to take the committee members to one of the “dirty dozen” facilities unannounced.  Only heartless zombies could visit one of those places and not be horrified.

Jason Smith, who would make a great prosecuting attorney, tried to get Rickey and other witnesses to restate their opinions by cross examining them with standard lawyer trickery.  He reworded what witnesses said and then asked them if they really didn’t mean the opposite.  Smith probably watches a lot of crime drama on TV and envisions himself as the star of the show.   He even got one pro-Prop B witness to agree that the new law isn’t “perfect,” to which she replied “Nothing’s perfect.”  Smith’s response was that the only perfect laws were those written by him.  Being twice his age, I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for his sophomoric  performance – but it was a struggle.

Committee member Schieffer took plenty of time to hammer away at how much more it would cost the state to do inspections and enforce the new requirements, but that argument evidently doesn’t hold much water.  The inspectors who currently work for the Dept of Ag would still do the same number of inspections, but they will have to look more carefully and not just call ahead and drop by for coffee.

The next witness in support of HB 131 was a veterinarian from, you guessed it, Neosho.  In his little corner of the world, everything’s fine and dandy.  There are no sick puppies being sold because he has to sign a health certificate for each one of them.  Well, I certainly feel better, don’t you? &nb
sp; Prosecutor,  er….Rep. Smith got into some crazy conversation with this vet about the necessary body temperature for a puppy to survive.  The vet wasn’t sure where that question was headed, so he demurred.  But, thanks to the all night research by Rep. Smith, we learned that a puppy’s body temperature has to be at least 90 degrees for survival.   But, OMG, the new law says the temperature in the kennels can’t exceed 85 degrees.  And all those poor puppies will die.   (No, I’m not making this up.)

By now, you, dear reader, have figured out that the whole show was a circus and the clowns were the center attraction.  All of the comments and questions from committee members were slanted against Prop B and in favor of either repealing it or gutting it to make it useless.  But keep in mind this is the Ag Committee.   Many of the members have dogs or used to have dogs and know all there is to know about raising animals.  And they don’t need no new-fangled care standards that probably are a conspiracy against good patriotic Missourians.  Oh, please.

Dr. Julie Brinkman, a veterinary with the Humane Society of Missouri, reminded committee members that the new law addresses care of ADULT dogs that produce puppies.  She explained that a female who is bred every cycle is feeding puppies for four out of every six months.  Her body is feeding them inside her and then by the milk she produces.  Her body does not have time to recover between litters and she loses her teeth, muscle mass, and eventually the ability to survive.  (You don’t even want to know about how some breeders put female dogs in slings who can’t stand up anymore so they can inseminate them.)   Every woman in that hearing room who has had children could have added her own testimony about how pregnancy and nursing  takes its toll on the mother.

Not to be upstaged, Rep. Smith asked Dr. Brinkman if the new law referred also to males when it says  a “dog” can be bred only twice in 18 months,   Choke, choke.  Was he asking whether male dogs would be allowed to have sex only twice in 18 months or did he actually not know that male dogs can’t get pregnant??    I, being a retired English teacher, could have explained that the word in that sentence referred to the antecedent in the previous sentence, but Rep. Smith wasn’t really interested in understanding the provision in the law.  He was clowning around in an attempt to get Dr. Brinkman flustered and to agree that the law was not perfect.  Did I say “sophomoric”?   Maybe middle school mentality fits better.

The star witness for the prosecution was Leslie of the Missouri Farm Bureau.  She is on a first name basis with all the committee members so no need to look her up.  They all thanked her profusely for coming, “good to see you again, ” etc.  I’m sure if the committee members could have reached her from their high perches they would have given her a big hug.  I wonder if part of the kissing up thing has to do with candidate endorsements?  No, probably not.

Leslie really spelled out the “hidden agenda” of the animal rights activists.  She pandered to provincial fears by mentioning those evil creatures who live on the East Coast and West Coast and how they are behind this whole takeover thingy.  Booga Booga !  She went on and on about all the money for Prop B that came from out of state.   Oh, excuse me while I bring up some unpleasant facts.   If we’re going to “follow the money,” let’s follow it right back to the Center for Consumer Freedom.*  I posted something about this last year.

Bob Baker, Executive Director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, explained the need for an upgrade in care standards at dog breeding facilities.  He helped write the 1992 law which is the current standard and explained that it provides only for the “survival” of the animals, not “humane care.”  He gave an example of one of the loopholes some breeders use.  The temperature requirement is written into the current law, but it says the temperature can’t be too cold or too hot for more than four hours.  Inspectors call ahead, breeders change the thermostat or hide dogs they don’t want the inspectors to see.  Even if the inspectors don’t call ahead, breeders can just change the temperature while the breeder is there and change it again when he leaves.  The inspector, obviously, isn’t going to stand there for four hours.

Baker quoted the BBB reports again and made the point that improved care of animals will actually enhance the breeding business.  And it would be a vote of confidence to dog owners if they knew that Missouri was cleaning up its act.  It would enhance our reputation if we could shake the “puppy mill capital” image.

Jason Smith (again) spoke up and tried to get Baker to say that shelters and rescue groups should have to provide the same care standards that breeders will be required to provide.  Baker tried to explain that shelters offer temporary housing and take good care of their animals. (Personal story:  I visited the Franklin County Humane Society unannounced and saw a volunteer playing with a dog in the “play room.”)

Despite twisting Baker’s words and grilling him like a criminal, Smith was not able to wear the man down.  Good for you, Bob !

Time was running out, but committee member Schieffer couldn’t help tossing one last grenade at the witness.  He attacked Baker’s credibility and accused him of talking in “generalities.”  If that’s their best ammunition, we shouldn’t have too much to worry about.

*

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the “hospitality industry,” which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smoke free laws. CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of meat & dairy, processed food, fatty foods, soda pop, pharmaceuticals, animal testing, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the “nanny awards” to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives. Anyone who criticizes any of the above is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association (AMA); the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)  When CCF went under the name of Guest Choice Network, its purpose was to enlist operators of “restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators” to “support mentality of ‘smokers rights’ by encouraging responsibility to protect ‘guest choice.'” According to a year end budget, Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during its first 13 months of operation, including $390,000 for “membership marketing/materials development,” $430,000 to establish a communication center and newsletter (which Berman promised would have a “60% to 70% smoking focus”, $110,000 to create a “multi-industry advi
sory council,” and $345,000 for “grassroots network development/operation.”

 source Wikipedia

Yesterday (January 25th) I witnessed  “democracy” in action as members of the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee listened to what was supposed to be a public hearing on the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act passed by voters in November.  The whole show was scripted and a ringer played the key role.   Rep. Jason Smith introduced himself as an ex-officio member of the committee representing “the leadership.”  One can only assume he means the Republican leaders of the House  – or – the “leadership” of the Big Money Interests behind the attacks on the Humane Society of the United States.   It’s hard to know for whom the Jason Smiths of this country work  since the corporate moneybags and their minions in government enjoy an incestuous relationship that benefits both groups.

There have been at least seven bills so far introduced in the Missouri General Assembly to either repeal or seriously weaken the law passed by almost 52% of the voters in Missouri in November.  Keep in mind that, when state reps and senators win by 52% of the vote, they consider it a landslide and the outcome of the election is never challenged.   But, evidently, this same rule doesn’t apply when the old boys on the Ag Committee don’t get what they want.  They obviously didn’t see the big neon signs flashing over their heads yesterday spelling out  HIPPOCRITTERS.

Committee chair Tom Loehner (R-112) called the meeting to order exactly at noon and laid down the groundrules – no clapping, no booing, no outbursts, no spitting on the floor, (oops, sorry – I was caught up in the excitement of the moment.)

He asked for a show of hands how many for and against Prop B.  The room was packed and an overflow crowd stood in the hallways.  The count was easily 80% in favor of Prop B.  Some of us wore buttons saying “Defend Prop B.”   Some had stickers saying “The Voters Have Spoken.” Although the committee members were totally against Prop B and made that very clear, they had to face a room full of people who see them as stooges for corporate agriculture.  

Chairman Loehner decided to start the hearing with  HB 131 although two other bills were listed as being considered as well.  The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Stanley Cox (R-118 which is the Sedalia area) went first and listed all of his reasons for hating the law passed by the voters.  “It’s hard to summarize his points because he spoke of “things” in the law that veterinarians wouldn’t support” reports staff members from the Pharr Road Animal Hospital. They go on to explain how his bill, unlike Prop B, is based on “science.”  His central concern seemed to be that using the term puppy mill wasn’t fair to legitimate breeders.  Committee members asked Cox why he wanted to remove the section of the bill that says drinking water for the dogs had to be “debris free”?   His answer was that, in his experience, dogs are messy and can get their food in their water bowls.   How’s that for sound “science”??

Co-sponsor of HB 131, Chuck Gatschenberger (R-13) testified that he didn’t like the name “puppy mill” either and that the new law is an infringement on the right of breeders to make money and pay their bills.  He and most of the committee members kept referring to dogs and puppies as “the product” to sell, and his point was that “legitimate” breeders (there’s that word again) would be put out of business.  When all the breeders go bankrupt, they will lose their homes and have no way to support their families.   Seriously.

Rep. Joe Aull (D-26) asked Cox why he wanted to increase the number of females being bred from 50 to 100.   Cox said he just picked the number out of the air.   Hmmmm……

The first outside witness in favor of HB 131 was Karen Strange of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners.  She said her organization’s goal is to protect animal owners from the “animal rights movement.”  She warned the committee that there is an insidious plot by animal activists to” change the face of agriculture”

This theme was repeated several times during the two hours of testimony.  The Humane Society of the United States is the bogeyman in the eyes of opponents of our new law.  First they come to protect puppies and dogs, but then they want free range chickens and some of those other crazy things that are going on in places like California (horrors !)  Eventually, there will be no meat available to Americans and civilization will come to an end.  No, really.  This is what they believe, and I think the folks in the audience who hate Prop B honestly think this is what will happen to our country if we improve the care standards at dog breeding operations in Missouri.

Committee member Ed Schieffer (R-11) tried to get a handle on how many actual breeding operations there are in Missouri.  He said he had heard there were a little over 1400 “legitimate” breeders despite the fact that the Prop B supporters keep saying there are over 3000 puppy mills in Missouri.  The question came down to licensed vs. unlicensed breeders, but this is not as clear cut as it sounds either.  Evidently,some licensed breeders prefer to ignore the care standards and just accept the warnings and citations by the state inspectors until they eventually just give up trying to be licensed.   It’s kind of like people who own guns aren’t criminals until they shoot somebody.    When asked whether licensed breeders could meet the new requirements in Prop B,  Strange answered that she doubted any of them could meet the standards.

The first witness in support of Prop B and opposed to SB 131 was Tim Rickey, from Franklin County, who works for the ASPCA and has been in the animal protection business for over 20 years.  He did a very good job of explaining the problem and why a citizens’ initiative was necessary to get Prop B passed.  He offered the committee copies of reports from multiple sources describing the horrible conditions where animals suffer all their lives.  He quoted from a Better Business Bureau report as well as reports by the state auditor’s office over the years and the Department of Agriculture’s own record keeping and summary reports.  Rickey emphasized that it is not true that bad conditions exist only at unlicensed facilities.   He also appealed to the committee members not to go against the will of the voters. The one thing I wish Rickey had offered was to take the committee members to one of the “dirty dozen” facilities unannounced.  Only heartless zombies could visit one of those places and not be horrified.

Jason Smith, who would make a great prosecuting attorney, tried to get Rickey and other witnesses to restate their opinions by cross examining them with standard lawyer trickery.  He reworded what witnesses said and then asked them if they really didn’t mean the opposite.  Smith probably watches a lot of crime drama on TV and envisions himself as the star of the show.   He even got one pro-Prop B witness to agree that the new law isn’t “perfect,” to which she replied “Nothing’s perfect.”  Smith’s response was that the only perfect laws were those written by him.  Being twice his age, I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for his sophomoric  performance – but it was a struggle.

Committee member Schieffer took plenty of time to hammer away at how much more it would cost the state to do inspections and enforce the new requirements, but that argument evidently doesn’t hold much water.  The inspectors who currently work for the Dept of Ag would still do the same number of inspections, but they will have to look more carefully and not just call ahead and drop by for coffee.

The next witness in support of HB 131 was a veterinarian from, you guessed it, Neosho.  In his little corner of the world, everything’s fine and dandy.  There are no sick puppies being sold because he has to sign a health certificate for each one of them.  Well, I certainly feel better, don’t you?   Pros
ecutor,  er….Rep. Smith got into some crazy conversation with this vet about the necessary body temperature for a puppy to survive.  The vet wasn’t sure where that question was headed, so he demurred.  But, thanks to the all night research by Rep. Smith, we learned that a puppy’s body temperature has to be at least 90 degrees for survival.   But, OMG, the new law says the temperature in the kennels can’t exceed 85 degrees.  And all those poor puppies will die.   (No, I’m not making this up.)

By now, you, dear reader, have figured out that the whole show was a circus and the clowns were the center attraction.  All of the comments and questions from committee members were slanted against Prop B and in favor of either repealing it or gutting it to make it useless.  But keep in mind this is the Ag Committee.   Many of the members have dogs or used to have dogs and know all there is to know about raising animals.  And they don’t need no new-fangled care standards that probably are a conspiracy against good patriotic Missourians.  Oh, please.

Dr. Julie Brinkman, a veterinary with the Humane Society of Missouri, reminded committee members that the new law addresses care of ADULT dogs that produce puppies.  She explained that a female who is bred every cycle is feeding puppies for four out of every six months.  Her body is feeding them inside her and then by the milk she produces.  Her body does not have time to recover between litters and she loses her teeth, muscle mass, and eventually the ability to survive.  (You don’t even want to know about how some breeders put female dogs in slings who can’t stand up anymore so they can inseminate them.)   Every woman in that hearing room who has had children could have added her own testimony about how pregnancy and nursing  takes its toll on the mother.

Not to be upstaged, Rep. Smith asked Dr. Brinkman if the new law referred also to males when it says  a “dog” can be bred only twice in 18 months,   Choke, choke.  Was he asking whether male dogs would be allowed to have sex only twice in 18 months or did he actually not know that male dogs can’t get pregnant??    I, being a retired English teacher, could have explained that the word in that sentence referred to the antecedent in the previous sentence, but Rep. Smith wasn’t really interested in understanding the provision in the law.  He was clowning around in an attempt to get Dr. Brinkman flustered and to agree that the law was not perfect.  Did I say “sophomoric”?   Maybe middle school mentality fits better.

The star witness for the prosecution was Leslie of the Missouri Farm Bureau.  She is on a first name basis with all the committee members so no need to look her up.  They all thanked her profusely for coming, “good to see you again, ” etc.  I’m sure if the committee members could have reached her from their high perches they would have given her a big hug.  I wonder if part of the kissing up thing has to do with candidate endorsements?  No, probably not.

Leslie really spelled out the “hidden agenda” of the animal rights activists.  She pandered to provincial fears by mentioning those evil creatures who live on the East Coast and West Coast and how they are behind this whole takeover thingy.  Booga Booga !  She went on and on about all the money for Prop B that came from out of state.   Oh, excuse me while I bring up some unpleasant facts.   If we’re going to “follow the money,” let’s follow it right back to the Center for Consumer Freedom.*  I posted something about this last year.

Bob Baker, Executive Director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, explained the need for an upgrade in care standards at dog breeding facilities.  He helped write the 1992 law which is the current standard and explained that it provides only for the “survival” of the animals, not “humane care.”  He gave an example of one of the loopholes some breeders use.  The temperature requirement is written into the current law, but it says the temperature can’t be too cold or too hot for more than four hours.  Inspectors call ahead, breeders change the thermostat or hide dogs they don’t want the inspectors to see.  Even if the inspectors don’t call ahead, breeders can just change the temperature while the breeder is there and change it again when he leaves.  The inspector, obviously, isn’t going to stand there for four hours.

Baker quoted the BBB reports again and made the point that improved care of animals will actually enhance the breeding business.  And it would be a vote of confidence to dog owners if they knew that Missouri was cleaning up its act.  It would enhance our reputation if we could shake the “puppy mill capital” image.

Jason Smith (again) spoke up and tried to get Baker to say that shelters and rescue groups should have to provide the same care standards that breeders will be required to provide.  Baker tried to explain that shelters offer temporary housing and take good care of their animals. (Personal story:  I visited the Franklin County Humane Society unannounced and saw a volunteer playing with a dog in the “play room.”)

Despite twisting Baker’s words and grilling him like a criminal, Smith was not able to wear the man down.  Good for you, Bob !

Time was running out, but committee member Schieffer couldn’t help tossing one last grenade at the witness.  He attacked Baker’s credibility and accused him of talking in “generalities.”  If that’s their best ammunition, we shouldn’t have too much to worry about.

*

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the “hospitality industry,” which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smoke free laws. CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of meat & dairy, processed food, fatty foods, soda pop, pharmaceuticals, animal testing, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the “nanny awards” to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives. Anyone who criticizes any of the above is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association (AMA); the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)  When CCF went under the name of Guest Choice Network, its purpose was to enlist operators of “restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators” to “support mentality of ‘smokers rights’ by encouraging responsibility to protect ‘guest choice.'” According to a year end budget, Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during its first 13 months of operation, including $390,000 for “membership marketing/materials development,” $430,000 to establish a communication center and newsletter (which Berman promised would have a “60% to 70% smoking focus”, $110,000 to create a “multi-industry advisory cou
ncil,” and $345,000 for “grassroots network development/operation.”

 source Wikipedia

There’s a common misperception that the constant state of warfare and conflict that besets the Holy Land, Eretz Israel, or in Arabic, Bilad Ash’ Sham, is a result of some cultural or racial flaw–“oh, they’ve been fighting for two thousand years, they’ll never stop.”

Even the most cursory examination of human history reveals skirmishes, battles, and wars, interwoven throughout our timeline, have been perpetrated by all religions, races, and cultures. People are people. And a kinder gentler human civilization can be had, but it has to be taught, and then walked.  

As I observed in a report on the Holy Land in 2009–contrary to popular belief–history’s wars and military campaigns have been launched largely due to political agendas, power struggles, or naked resource/land grabs–and although often cloaked in religious trappings–religion has primarily been used as a war-making tool; to mobilize foot soldiers, and rally public opinion when necessary.

Humans are pack animals (viz. “leader of the pack”, not “backpack”), and in modern civilization, we have been arranged into herds within herds; overlapping groupings and interchangeable associations, class, race, religion. But in order to change the perpetual dynamic of two warring peoples, polarized, locked in conflict–efforts must be taken to bring the poles together. This can be accomplished through education by blurring ethnocentric distinctions, emphasizing the universality of what it means to be human-our basic needs, hopes, and dreams. A facet of this ‘coming together’ process involves a sincere effort to understand the life experiences and background of the different societies at play–to be aware–and especially–to empathize with individual and/or group trauma.

While working with an inspiring new organization called the Euphrates Institute, founder Janessa Gans relayed a profound concept from Palestinian nonviolence activist Sami Awad with the Holy Land Trust.

This is a true universal expression of peacemaking, seeing the pain within the Israeli community at large and seeking to ameliorate it; helping both Israeli and Palestinian alike.

A book by Avraham Burg, “The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes“, illumes on this topic of trauma and healing for the Israeli community and Jewish Diaspora. Avraham Burg is a former Israeli Knesset member and former Chairman of both the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization.

The following is an excerpt from Burg’s, The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes,

Herman (Judith Herman’s “Trauma and Recovery”) attempted to understand the depth of the traumatic experience and to find in it the key for a spiritual recovery. She interviewed victims of post-traumatic stress disorder from battlefield and concentration camps and also victims of crimes, vulnerable family members (especially women and children), former hostages, prisoners of wars and rape victims. Her documentation is stunning and horrifying, but not without hope. The healing process that she proposes is long, slow, and requires patience, but it offers the hope of a future that is at least as good as the pre-traumatic past. I would like to borrow some of her insights in order to understand the Israeli paradox that pairs power with weakness, nuclear weapons with paranoia, solid international status with the world-is-against-us mentality…

…In time, Israel became a multi-traumatic society, a coalition of all its victims that harnesses its worst experiences and turned them into its central existential experience…The result is a national doctrine, aptly described in Yiddish by the late Prime Minister Levi Eshkol as Shimshon hagibor der nebechkicker, literally, “mighty Samson the weakling.”

This national condition includes two contradictory elements that are derived from our history: excessive power and desperate weakness. It makes sense to Israelis, but not to others, who may interpret it as something between hypocrisy and madness. The wisdom is self-evident in the nonscientific expression, “a battered boy will be a battering father.”

Both populations have their backs up against a wall; figuratively and literally. Palestinians in the occupied territories face the trauma of military occupation, endless check points, and resource deprivation. Israel, on the other hand, is surrounded by unfriendly Arab countries, suffers periodic attacks, and throughout the ages Jews have a well-known history of being persecuted and oppressed. Anyone growing up and living in this environment is certainly subject to trauma of one sort or another.  

For Sami Awad, a Palestinian, to take up the mantle with compassion for his oppressor, shows the heart of a true peacemaker in action; healing trauma through patience and understanding, squelching any fires of fear with a cool salve of love. Pervasive fear fuels the conflict and the recent rise of separatist attitudes and political beliefs (e.g. Yisrael Beiteinu / Hamas, etc.), only increases the fear of the “other”. The best antidote to reduce alienation between peoples, starts with promoting intercultural values through our children’s education. There’s no earlier point to appropriately address the racial, cultural, and/or political stereotypes that puts people at odds with one another.

Shepha Vainstein (Founder of the Salaam Shalom Educational Foundation), has been leading the way in building educational programs in the Holy Land for children to learn nonviolence and peace while absorbing a transcendent understanding of humanity beyond race or religion. In a recent speaking tour Shepha explained the purpose behind Salaam Shalom’s Ein Bustan, the first Jewish/Arab Waldorf kindergarten in Israel.

“If we’re going to have peace in the future in the Middle East, we’re going to need to focus on healing children today. At a time when there is so much cynicism and despair about the situation, it’s important to know about a life-enriching approach to education that is changing both Jewish and Arab children’s lives for the better. Waldorf education, an artistic and healing education, nurtures children while cultivating independent creative thinking, cooperative problem solving, and flexibility. Through the Waldorf curriculum children are introduced to other cultures and religions and significant bridges are being built with Arab and Jewish children and their families.”

Reaching children in their formative years to stave off discriminating or racist perspectives is the heavy lifting that will eventually succeed in creating a sustainable peace. In our discussion within Euphrates Institute about the healing potential of addressing collective trauma, the inspirational work of Uri Avnery was mentioned.

Uri Avnery is the founder of the Gush Shalom movement. Gush Shalom, “The Peace Bloc”, is an Israeli group praised by organizations such as Amnesty International and the American Friends Service Committee. Adam Keller, a chief organizer with Gush Shalom, appeared on my satellite TV talk show, Global Peace Network, in 2004.

Uri Avnery, like Avraham Burg, has deep roots woven throughout the entire life of young Israel–incidently, both Uri and Avraham were born in Germany. Uri joined the Zionist paramilitary organization, Irgun, in 1938 and fought for Israeli’s i
ndependence in 1948.

From a 2009 column entitled “Tutu’s Prayer”, Uri speaks about the Holocaust, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation movement, calls for boycotts of Israel (which he opposes)–all through the lens of a conversation he had had with South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu,

“Peoples are not the same everywhere. It seems that the Blacks in South Africa are very different from the Israelis, and from the Palestinians, too. The collapse of the oppressive racist regime did not lead to a bloodbath, as could have been predicted, but on the contrary: to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Instead of revenge, forgiveness. Those who appeared before the commission and admitted their misdeeds were pardoned. That was in tune with Christian belief, and that was also in tune with the Jewish Biblical promise: “Whoso confesseth and forsaketh [his sins] shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

I told the bishop that I admire not only the leaders who chose this path but also the people who accepted it.

ONE OF the profound differences between the two conflicts concerns the Holocaust.

Centuries of pogroms have imprinted on the consciousness of the Jews the conviction that the whole world is out to get them. This belief was reinforced a hundredfold by the Holocaust. Every Jewish Israeli child learns in school that “the entire world was silent” when the six million were murdered. This belief is anchored in the deepest recesses of the Jewish soul. Even when it is dormant, it is easy to arouse it.

(That is the conviction which made it possible for Avigdor Lieberman, last week, to accuse the entire Swedish nation of cooperating with the Nazis, because of one idiotic article in a Swedish tabloid.)

It may well be that the Jewish conviction that “the whole world is against us” is irrational. But in the life of nations, as indeed in the life of individuals, it is irrational to ignore the irrational.

The Holocaust will have a decisive impact on any call for a boycott of Israel. The leaders of the racist regime in South Africa openly sympathized with the Nazis and were even interned for this in World War II. Apartheid was based on the same racist theories as inspired Adolf Hitler. It was easy to get the civilized world to boycott such a disgusting regime. The Israelis, on the other hand, are seen as the victims of Nazism. The call for a boycott will remind many people around the world of the Nazi slogan “Kauft nicht bei Juden!” – don’t buy from Jews.

That does not apply to every kind of boycott. Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of the product of the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. Since then, the European Union has been working hard to close the gates of the EU to the products of the settlers, and almost nobody has accused it of anti-Semitism.

ONE OF the main battlefields in our fight for peace is Israeli public opinion. Most Israelis believe nowadays that peace is desirable but impossible (because of the Arabs, of course.) We must convince them not that peace would be good for Israel, but that it is realistically achievable.”

Finally, in bringing to bear existing resources concerning trauma and healing, I would be remiss if I did not mention Rabbi Michael Lerner, who among many other things, is the publisher and editor of Tikkun magazine (from Tikkun Olam or “heal the world”, a Jewish commandment and obligation, or mitzvot).

Rabbi Lerner, on the sixtieth anniversary of Israel, published a Tikkun column on Huffington Post named, “On Zionism, Healing, and Israel’s 60th Anniversary”. In it, Lerner intones the reality of Holocaust trauma and its resultant impact on the people of Palestine,

Jews jumped from the burning buildings of Europe into Palestine not because we were servants of imperial or colonial interests, but because we were desperate and because no one wanted us or would protect us. Unfortunately and tragically, we landed on the backs of Palestinians who were already there, and we hurt many of them in our landing. So scarred were we by our own pain-having just witnessed the death of one out of every three Jews alive on the planet-that we were unable to notice or take seriously the pain that we were causing to the Palestinian people in the process. When our army uprooted Palestinians from their homes and villages, it was in the midst of a struggle for survival in which Jews were determined to be as ruthless towards others as others had been towards us…

…When I look back and watch the irrational and self-defeating behavior of both sides, and when I interview people on both sides of this struggle, one concept shouts out to me: PTSD-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The trauma on both sides has led people to be unable to think rationally about what is in their own best interests. For the Palestinians that trauma led them to reject the proposal of a two-state solution that was offered them in 1947, and for them to encourage the surrounding Arab states to reject every offer made by Israel in subsequent decades even after those states were decisively defeated in the 1967 War. In later decades, starting in the 1980s, it was the Jews who rejected reasonable offers for peace, and instead imagined that their military might would allow them to crush the Palestinian national movement. Illusion after illusion after illusion.

In considering the best preparation and plan for peace–the Euphrates new mantra–I must say that people bringing heart and head together in showing compassion and generosity will be the torch bearers to show the way; to dispel the dark side of warring tribal “illusions”. There is no more deeper truth than the fact that we are all members of one family of humanity. As Rabbi Lerner expressed, each side wielding an “I’m right, you’re wrong” kind of rhetoric is armed with very specific facts and statistics bolstering their arguments, but until we begin to build an understanding founded on universal basic human needs, of safety for our children, of peace for our collective future, this impasse will continue to fester.

War begins with violation of thought that summons the violence of deed. And people living through fear are often unknowingly contributing to an amplification of the conflict through the use of stereotypes, racist notions, and violent metaphor. It would be helpful if more people could be taught to become aware of this fact. Many are not conscious participants in furthering conflict-but if shown a way to dilute it-the numbers of people for peace will vastly overwhelm and effectively silence the small minority “authors of war“.

We have former warriors and even victims of the conflict working for peace–dedicated to nonviolence and nonviolent communication–these are the stories we must demand the mainstream media to carry, in the States and in Israel. But until then, there are relatively few venues sharing this heartening news. Hearing stories of courage and hope through examples of service to humanity, will open, for some, a door; through which a choice can be made to stop adding to the disease of war and conflict. People could start healing their collective trauma and adopt an intercultural ethos based upon empathy, equity, justice, and peace.

This may sound unrealistic to some, but it becomes more plausible when you co
nsider the shift in attitude among many partisan Israeli political leaders, officers, and soldiers–or their Palestinian counterparts–that have come to realize that peace and prosperity will only be achieved through regional cooperation and interdependence. Beyond the well-known two-state solution (Israel and Palestine, ’67 borders), visionaries like Bernard Avishai go further and talk about a three-state solution (common market with Jordan), and even a 20-state “Sarkozy-like” regional economic cooperation.

These are the voices of reason. They speak from a position unmatched in experience and expertise in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, and are calling for population-wide psychological healing to prepare the way for peace. Leaders in the US, Palestine, and Israel should heed their call for healing-and begin to have faith in what’s possible on the positive side of the spectrum–instead of governing through fear and myopia. Loving perspectives seen through compassionate eyes can only add to our toolkit for helping to cure the epidemic PTSD afflicting Middle Eastern political affairs today.

Nitzahon la Shalom, Mansour ya Salaam, and Victory to Peace!

Peak Wingnut is a myth.

Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (r) introduced a bill which is bound to be a favorite with the teabagger set. You’ve got to wonder, if they have to pay an extra fee for the privilege, about the irony of paying more money to the state to ostensibly protest the state having more of your money.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 307

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), MOLENDORP, LONG, FISHER, BAHR, DAVIS, JONES (117) AND RICHARDSON (Co-sponsors).

0627L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 301, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to a special license plate.

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

           Section A. Chapter 301, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 301.4035, to read as follows:

           301.4035. Any person may apply for special “Don’t Tread on Me” motor vehicle license plates for any vehicle such person owns, either solely or jointly, other than an apportioned motor vehicle or a commercial motor vehicle licensed in excess of eighteen thousand pounds gross weight. Such person shall make application for the special license plates on a form provided by the director of revenue. The director shall then issue license plates bearing letters or numbers or a combination thereof as determined by the advisory committee established in section 301.129, with the words “DON’T TREAD ON ME” in place of the words “SHOW-ME STATE”. Such license plates shall be made with fully reflective material with a common color scheme and design, shall be clearly visible at night, and shall be aesthetically attractive, as prescribed by section 301.130.

[emphasis in original]

Dudes, do you really think this is a good idea? When the black helicopters land they’re gonna know who to pick up first.

Then, with HB 310, Representative Gatschenberger (r) and his cosponsors bring on the full teabagger:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 310

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), DAVIS, JONES (117) AND RICHARDSON (Co-sponsors).

0052L.02I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 14, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the State Authority and Federal Tax Fund Act, with an emergency clause.

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

           Section A. Chapter 14, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 14.100, to read as follows:

           14.100. 1. (1) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “State Authority and Federal Tax Fund Act”.

           (2) In light of the continuing unconstitutional federal expenditures, the state hereby reasserts its authority under the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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

           (1) “Consumer tax”, any tax imposed by the federal government on any beer, liquor, wine, or similar alcoholic beverage, tobacco, gasoline, or any other consumer goods;

           (2) “Director”, the director of the department of revenue;

           (3) “Excise tax”, any tax that forms a component of the State Highway Account;

           (4) “Federal Tax Fund”, the fund created in this section;

           (5) “Income tax”, any tax imposed by the federal government on incomes from whatever source derived and shall include but not be limited to all income, withholding, payroll, Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes;

           (6) “Person”, natural persons, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, and other legal entities.

           3. (1) There is hereby created in the state treasury the “Federal Tax Fund”, which shall consist of moneys collected under this section. The state treasurer shall be custodian of the fund. In accordance with sections 30.170 and 30.180, the state treasurer shall approve disbursements as provided in this section. Upon appropriation, money in the fund shall be used solely for the administration of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 33.080 to the contrary, any moneys remaining in the fund at the end of the biennium shall not revert to the credit of the general revenue fund. The state treasurer shall invest moneys in the fund in the same manner as other funds are invested. Any interest and moneys earned on such investments shall be credited to the general revenue fund. Moneys accruing to and deposited in the designated funds shall not be part of total state revenues as defined in section 17, article X, Constitution of Missouri, and the expenditure of such revenues shall not be an expense of state government under section 20, article X, Constitution of Missouri.

           (2) All federal tax moneys collected by the state on behalf of the federal government shall be deposited by the director into the federal tax fund. The treasurer shall disburse the funds on a quarterly basis, less any interest earned on the deposits, to the respective appropriate federal recipient.

           4. Any person liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax shall remit the tax when due along with the federal taxpayer number to the director for deposit into the federal tax fund. All moneys collected under this subsection shall be transmitted to the director who, as a fiduciary agent, shall credit the funds to the federal tax fund on behalf of the person who remitted the tax. The director shall submit to the Internal Revenue Service the names and tax identification numbers of, and the date on which and amounts deposited by, persons liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax so that the Internal Revenue Service can credit the state’s taxpayers for federal tax obligations. Any person liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax who fails to forward federal tax moneys to the director shall be subject to penalties assessed under applicable federal or state statutes.

           5. The general assembly, by simple majority vote in both houses
, shall determine how the moneys transferred from the federal tax fund to the general fund, including accrued interest, shall be used for the benefit of the people of the state. Such moneys shall be used for the benefit of the people of this state only.

           6. (1) If, as a result of any state action taken under the authority of this section, the federal government denies any matching funds or grants or imposes or mandates any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state, the state treasurer shall withhold quarterly disbursements as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection.

           (2) If the federal government imposes sanctions of any kind on the state for failing to enact legislation called for by federal mandate, the general assembly shall consider the constitutionality of such mandate by concurrent resolution. If the general assembly determines the federal government is operating beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers, and is therefor operating unconstitutionally, the general assembly shall disapprove of such actions by the federal government by concurrent resolution adopted by a majority vote of each chamber of the general assembly, and shall present such concurrent resolution to the state attorney general, who shall send written notice to the state treasurer that the treasurer shall begin withholding disbursements under subdivision (3) of this subsection in accordance with the concurrent resolution of the general assembly. If the federal government denies any matching funds or grants or imposes or mandates any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state while the general assembly is not in session, the governor shall convene the general assembly in special session for the sole purpose of considering the actions of the federal government under this subdivision.

           (3) Upon the denial of any matching funds or grants or the imposition or mandate of any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state by the federal government, or upon receiving notice of the general assembly’s determination under subdivision (2) of this subsection, the state treasurer shall withhold from payment all or part of the quarterly disbursement normally disbursed or transferred to the appropriate federal recipient, per occurrence, an amount equal to the total cumulative outstanding amount of the federal denial of matching funds or grants or financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds. The state treasurer shall continue to withhold all or part of the quarterly disbursement or transfer not otherwise disbursed or transferred to the respective appropriate federal recipients until the total cumulative amount withheld from the federal government is equal to the total cumulative outstanding amount of federal denial of matching funds or grants or financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds.

           (4) Per occurrence, when the general assembly has been duly notified in writing by the federal government that the federal government has terminated any denial of any matching funds or grants or any imposition or mandate of any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state, the state treasurer shall resume disbursements under this section at the end of the calendar quarter immediately following such notice by the federal government.

           7. In compliance with the oath or affirmation clause found in Article VI, Constitution of the United States, the governor, lieutenant governor, members of the general assembly, judges, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, director, and all other state officers and employees shall implement this section regardless of any sanctions, threats, court action, or other pressure brought to bear by federal authorities. Any actions by the federal government, its agencies or agents, or the Congress of the United States against any person in this state for compliance with this section shall be considered an action against this state, and this state shall make an appropriate response to cause the action to cease and desist. This state shall take all necessary measures to recover from the federal government, its agencies, or agents, or the Congress of the United States, the reasonable costs of defending the action.

           8. This section shall apply to federal taxes collected after the effective date of this section and, because the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, as provided in Article VI, Constitution of the United States, this section shall be enforced retroactively to repeal any unconstitutional federal mandates that have been imposed on the state.

           Section B. Because immediate action is necessary to enable the residents of this state to retain the benefits from tax revenues derived from the people of this state, section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and section A of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.

[emphasis in original]

They’re doing this with a straight face?

Bonus teabagger points for the boilerplate tenther drivel.

As if intercepting federal tax and fee liabilities from Missouri residents and possibly reappropriating that federal revenue exclusively for the State of Missouri would work? There is the small matter that Missouri takes in more federal money from the government than we generate in federal revenue [pdf]:

Table 2

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures Per Capita As a Percentage of the U.S. Average Fiscal Years 1994 and 2004

Missouri

Federal Tax Burdens

FY 1994 92% FY 2004 88%

Federal Expenditures

FY 1994 124% FY 2004 114%

[underline emphasis added]

And if the net contributor states were to do the same thing?

This is in the same realm as a Michelle Bachmann kind of stoopid.

Okay, this…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City (January 20, 2011)

….Blue Girl: Are you gonna sit across the aisle at the State of the Union?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): You know, I, it’s funny because it’s now there’s this pressure to get a date.

Blue Girl: [laughter]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): A Republican date. So I’m busy casting about for my republican date. I feel like I’m back in high school.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Um, you know, I , I, uh, I’ve, I’ve asked Susan Collins but, you know, I sent her an e-mail. I said, Susan, are you already taken?

Blue Girl: [laughter]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  You know, uh, would you be willing to be my date for the State of the Union? So, we’ll see. I think what you’re gonna see is a lot of people now kind of, you know, sitting with Republicans and it being much more mixed. I hope so. I think it would be a good thing.

Blue Girl: I want to see Barney Franks sit by Joe Wilson.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, I don’t know that that will happen, but…

Blue Girl: Oh, I would pay cash money.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  [laughter] I don’t know that that will happen. But, you know, let’s hope this isn’t just a, like a hula hoop, you know, let’s hope this is just not a fad, that we can keep some of this going. Because the vitriol is pretty bad.

Blue Girl: Yeah, yeah.  Crazy doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Right….

…is getting silly.

@clairecmc  Claire McCaskill

Glad that seat mate for tonight is new R Sen Jerry Moran from KS.He’s also KU grad.The D v R thing is probably easier than Tiger v Jayhawk. 1 hour ago

Evidently Susan Collins was busy or already taken. I guess we’ll have to watch to find out.

@NancyPelosi  Nancy Pelosi

I thank @GOPLeader for his #SOTU offer, but I invited my friend Rep. Bartlett from MD yesterday & am pleased he accepted 1 hour ago

How long will it last? And will they ever call?

This is more like it:

@daveweigel  daveweigel

By my estimate, the discussion of #SOTU seating arrangements has created 124,087 jobs 1 hour ago

@rkref  roadkillrefugee

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., will sit with anime blow-up doll at #SOTU 34 minutes ago

Ouch.

@GottaLaff  GottaLaff

RT @owillis: alito, thomas, scalia not going to the #sotu? oh, poor babies. #watb |They’ll be on a date w/ the Koch Bros. 23 minutes ago

Okay, that was funny.

@crutnacker  Crutnacker

Justice Thomas WAS going to go to the State of the Union address, but was unable to follow the directions to get there. #sotu

10 minutes ago

That one cost $690,000.00.

Update:

Win!

@jennakimjones  JKJ

This year the Dems & Repubs are sitting among each other. If ur confused, the Repubs will be wearing American flag pins & a scowl. #sotu 2 hours ago

On Tuesday, January 18th a state Senate committee hearing considered Senator Jane Cunningham’s (R-Chesterfield) nonbinding resolution (SR27) urging AG Chris Koster to join the frivolous lawsuit challenging the mandate in the health care reform bill. Twenty activists urged the Republicans on the panel to remember that government’s purpose is to protect us in situations where we as individuals cannot fend for ourselves. We cannot, for example, prevent health insurers from dumping the most vulnerable and getting fat on premiums from their healthier customers. Those who attended the hearing spoke repeatedly about Judith Parker’s testimony. Parker’s four year old granddaughter has cancer, and the whole family fears that by the time the little girl is five, she will have reached the lifetime caps that health insurers would continue to impose if it were not for the Affordable Care Act.

The audio track is not the best, but I’ll transcribe what I can hear. What I can definitely hear is the passion in Parker’s voice. And although the camera doesn’t show Parker’s face, we can see, at the end, the concern that her remarks elicited from Sen. Jolie Justus (D-KC).

I want to tell you about my granddaughter, who, as we speak here today, is in Children’s Hospital in St. Louis County. She is there with an infection after twenty months of chemotherapy for cancer. She has no resistance. It’s hard for me to sit here today with her in St. Louis. She has another nine to ten months of chemotherapy to go. The reasons why I am here and not with her … there are three compelling reasons.

I’m just getting rid of a cold and I can’t be in the room with her. I’m thankful for all of modern technology. I can visit with her as soon as I get home, as I do, on Skype. We visit two or three times a day and check with each other.

I am here because we (inaudible) and we pray, my family and I, we pray that (inaudible) will keep her with us. We are also burdened with the sheer fact of what’s gonna happen. Is she gonna reach the end of her coverage this year? She came very close to it last year. And when is she gonna run out with her lifetime coverage? She’s four years old, for pete’s sake, and we are worried about lifetime coverage. we are looking forward to the fact that if this particular bill does not stay in place, she will not be able to get (inaudible).

So why am I here. Because she is worth being here to speak up for affordable and accessible health care. And if you go into any of the hospitals, the children’s hospitals and other hospitals, it is not just my granddaughter, it is all of them. I urge you to go talk to those who are seriously ill and don’t know whether or not their coverage will continue. I urge you to go talk to those who if they had just gotten preventive care sooner would not be so seriously ill.

Thank you for allowing me to speak. (inaudible)

I hope to learn at some point which Republican senators did not stay in the chamber the next day to vote on Cunningham’s resolution. All of them on the panel voted it out of committee, but I’d be pleased if I saw that some of those same senators didn’t want to support it on the final floor vote. Judith Parker’s testimony is not hysterical, although she and her family may well have felt moments of hysteria. Her calm passion in the face of people who would deny a four year old the health care she needs speaks volumes about her commitment. And the fact that anyone could vote to dismantle reform speaks volumes as well.

[As happened with the video on my previous posting, the video is not showing on the front page on my server. If you’ll click “Discuss”, you’ll find the video beyond the fold.]

In case you weren’t aware some members of the Missouri House are so interested in an existential threat to our personal freedoms wasting everyone’s time on symbolic bills that they’ve introduced a constitutional amendment to enshrine our personal right to hunt and fish.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES POLLOCK (Sponsor), SCHOELLER, WELLS, DENISON, THOMSON, SMITH (150), KORMAN, HOUGHTON, BURLISON, BLACK, ENTLICHER, DUGGER, COOKSON, KLIPPENSTEIN, SCHATZ, DAVIS, McCAHERTY, FITZWATER, HINSON, KELLEY (126), HARRIS, FRANKLIN, BRATTIN, WYATT, WHITE, BROWN (116), RICHARDSON, HOUGH, RIDDLE, WRIGHT, LICHTENEGGER, LOEHNER, WETER, KEENEY, TILLEY, ALLEN, NASHEED, McGHEE, DIECKHAUS, SCHAD, RUZICKA, LAIR, FISHER, PHILLIPS, HIGDON, JONES (117), JONES (89), REDMON, CRAWFORD, ELMER, LANT, REIBOLDT, COX, GUERNSEY, HOSKINS, CIERPIOT, SCHIEFFER, SHUMAKE, CURLS AND ZERR (Co-sponsors).

0597L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section relating to the personal right to hunt and fish.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate 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 I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

           Section 35. That the citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions as provided by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take nonthreatened species.

[emphasis in original]

Does this mean, because hunting will be constitutionally “subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions”, that we’ll have to get a license to add to our Lepidoptera collection? When butterfly nets are outlawed, only outlaws will have butterfly nets.

Since corporate personhood is now a given, will we have to fight for elbow room with a multinational on opening day? Just asking. That commerce clause reference makes one pause, eh?

Is anyone in Jefferson City interested in spending time addressing job creation and unemployment? Anyone?

Last Tuesday, sixty health care reform advocates attended the Senate hearing on SR27, Sen. Jane Cunningham’s nonbinding resolution urging AG Chris Koster to join the right’s legal protests against the Affordable Health Care Act. Twenty people spoke feelingly about government’s responsibility to protect its citizens from corporations misusing their power (like, say, dropping a patient’s coverage when he gets sick or refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions). Ordinary people, they maintained, should not have their lives shortened or ended to in order to bloat the bottom line at health care companies.  It was all so boring from the point of view of a senator who has full health coverage, thanks to the citizens of this state. So Cunningham, decided to make the best of it. She texted–until Lily Tinker Fortel testified about the way her health insurance company had mistreated her. As a college student, she stayed on her parents’ policy, but then in her sophomore year, a tumor in her mouth turned out to be malignant and to require major surgery late in the summer. After the surgery, she had to have ten weeks of radiation–which kept her from re-enrolling in school. Since she was no longer a student, the insurance company dropped her coverage.

As Fortel told this story, with Cunningham sitting next to her attending to “real” matters, Fortel decided to challenge her. At about 3:15 in the video, she declares:

People die because of the games insurance companies play with our lives [here Fortel looked pointedly at Cunningham with her voice quavering] at the most vulnerable moments of our lives.

Fortel finally had the senator’s attention. The texting stopped.

[For some reason the film is not showing up on the front page on my server, but if you’ll click “Discuss”, it’s beyond the fold.]

(h/t to Amy Smoucha of Jobs with Justice for taking and posting the video