Today 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] 1/24/2011

Julia I Kauffman

5942 Overhill Circle

Mission Hills, KS 66208

1/24/2011

$10,000.00

Lockton Companies

444 W. 47th Street Suite 900

Kansas City, MO 64112

1/24/2011

$15,000.00

[emphasis added]

Yep, Kansas City people with the ability to do so are stepping up. I wonder what they think of Rex Sinquefield? Just asking.

Previously:

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)

Randy Turner at The Turner Report has a post up about focus group results released as part of the discovery in the Faux News Channel lawsuit against Robin Carnahan’s (D) 2010 senate campaign. There’s an interesting refrain about ACORN, showing that the rightwing’s assault based on fake charges and Congress’ capitulation with a bill of attainder did more damage than just shutting down the group which legitimately registered voters and provided other legitimate services.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Documents in Fox News lawsuit indicate why Robin Carnahan lost Senate election

Documents turned over to Fox News attorneys by a consulting firm provide evidence why Roy Blunt defeated Robin Carnahan in last year’s U. S. Senate race….

….Among the comments from people asked about their greatest concerns about Robin Carnahan:

-Why was she quiet about ACORN?….

-May have ignored problems with ACORN, whatever that is….

-She is too close to ACORN.

-I would want to know if there is any truth to those ACORN accusations….

-She supports ACORN.

-Too cheesy or fake with the farming. Too tied in with ACORN….

-She is too much a yes man for the president. She also caused too much money to given to the ACORN people.

-How closely is she tied to special interests like ACORN?….

-What is ACORN?….

Never mind that the rightwing and their Mighty Wurlitzer stooges beat their truthiness drum. As we can see, all they have to do is repeat the lie.

At Show Me Progress:

ACORN vindicated (March 2, 2010)

….Get that – the videos were “edited to meet their agenda.” In other words, these full-of-themselves rightwing echo chamber trainees, O’Keefe and  Giles, were running a scam.

The Brooklyn investigation is the third such to cast doubt on O’Keefe’s and Giles’ veracity. Investigations by the former Massachusetts Attorney, Scott Harshbarger, and the Congressional Research Service have found ACORN innocent of wrong doing….

At the Huffington Post:

John Atlas

Posted: June 15, 2010 02:41 AM

ACORN Vindicated of Wrongdoing by the Congressional Watchdog Office

On Monday, June 14, a preliminary probe by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)of ACORN has found no evidence the association or related organizations mishandled the $40 million in federal money they received in recent years.

A review of grants by nine federal agencies found no problems with ACORN’s grants. In my book Seeds of Change I document how ACORN, the largest most successful national anti poverty organization in America, was forced to close its door….

….In fact the staff in most of ACORN’s offices turned the pair away, reported the couple to the police, refused to provide them any aid, and in one case tried to convince the phony prostitute to get counseling. In no ACORN office did employees file any paperwork or do anything illegal on the duo’s behalf.

But Fox News broadcasted the deceptive tapes nearly around the clock for several days defaming ACORN….

[emphasis added]

Ironic, eh? And they have a plan.

We are not worthy.

….conservative Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal talking about a new television show:

“You have major criminality, excused as nothing. You can do anything you want, as long as you’re poor.”

That’s absolutely right, of course. Except for one word.

[emphasis added]

Well, isn’t that rich?

Missouri is moving further toward the the golden rule in politics. Them that gots the gold makes the rules.

Well, there’s a brand spanking new political action committee (via the Missouri Ethics Commission):

POLITICAL ACTION   Date Established:  1/21/2011

Date Terminated:

COMMITTEE: MECID:C111024

A SAFER MISSOURI

308 E HIGH ST STE 301

JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101-3237

TELEPHONE:(573) 634-2500

TREASURER: JAMES B DEUTSCH

308 E HIGH ST STE 301

JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101-3237

WORK PHONE: (573) 634-2500

HOME PHONE:

DEP. TREASURER: MANDY STUDER

5297 WASHINGTON PLACE ST LOUIS MO 63108

WORK PHONE:(314) 367-2842

HOME PHONE:

CANDIDATE:

TELEPHONE:

OFFICE SOUGHT: NONE ENTERED

Date of Election:

Political Party:

[emphasis added]

That address, where have we seen it before? Oh, right, a lobbyist:

  LOBID:L000946     Received Date:12/31/1998

Lobbyist’s Name Travis Brown Termination Date:

Lobbyist’s Address 5297 Washington Pl

Lobbyist’s Address2

Lobbyist’s C/S/Z St Louis, MO 63108

Telephone: (314) 540-5515

Telephone (2): 314-367-2842

[emphasis added]

And the same phone number.

Well, what’s that all about? Just asking.

This brand spanking new PAC got a really big contribution on the day it was formed:

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

C111024 A SAFER MISSOURI [pdf] 1/23/2011

Rex Sinquefield

244 Bent Walnut

Westphalia, MO 65085

1/21/2011

$300,000.00

[emphasis added]

Go figure.

Wouldn’t it be easier just to buy the whole state? Oh, sorry, my mistake. It’s cheaper this way.

There’s a photograph of a hand lettered protest sign making the rounds of the Internets.

The little elves in the Show Me Progress corporate headquarters graphics department put together their own version.

I see bumper stickers and t-shirts in our futures.

Freshman Representative Vicky Hartzler (R-4) is pretty sure that she’s a Godly woman. She’s even written a primer for Christians in politics, Running God’s Way: Step by Step to a Successful Political Campaign, which intersperses practical advice with scripture. It’s safe to assume that Rep. Hartzler knows her bible, so I can only wonder what she makes of the admonition in Luke 12:1 to “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

I ask this because Hartzler’s only been in office for a few weeks and she’s already had some trouble hiding one or the other of her two faces. She ran against government handouts, and then attempted to justify federal farm subsidies (which have, incidentally, benefited her and her family quite handsomely). She attacked earmarks, but if Claire McCaskill’s remarks in an interview with SMP’s Michael Bersin are accurate, she’s now evidently decided that she’ll go after the earmark goodies anyway.

Most glaringly, though, last week Hartzler voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but refused to heed the call to reject her own federally provided health care insurance.  She essentially denied any moral culpability for endangering access to health care for those same taxpayers who foot the bill for her excellent health care.

Hypocrites are basically just liars who mostly lie about themselves, so it’s not that surprising that Hartzler has no compunction about parroting the usual, tired GOP falsehoods to justify her vote. In the brief statement she made on the house floor last Tuesday she said:

I’m a small business owner, myself, and I can tell you since this has passed that health insurance premiums have skyrocketed in anticipation of the mandates going to be forced on them.

Sadly for Hartzler’s veracity, Factcheck.org has addressed the issue of rising insurance premiums, summarizing the plentiful evidence showing that they are indeed going up – but at similar rates to those of the past 10 years, and that the reason is not the new law, but rather rising medical costs. And, as a moment’s reflection reminds us, none of the provisions of the ACA that are specifically designed to slow growth for medical costs have gone into effect yet.

I would, of course, be more than remiss here if I were to fail to to point out that small business owner Hartzler can also take advantage of a nice tax credit provided by the ACA to help pay for her employees’ health insurance – as lots of other small business owners have already figured out. I bet that if Vicky Two-face is actually eligible, she’ll manage to get in on this, just like she gobbles up farm subsidies and, potentially, earmarked pork.

Hartzler also stated that the ACA “… put another $1.2 trillion of debt on our country.” This is pure bilge. The ACA will pare the deficit down by $1.3 trillion over 20 years according to the CBO. In contrast, the GOP repeal bill, which our intrepid deficit fighter voted for, will actually add $230 billion to the deficit. The GOP response to this information, as exemplified by the good Christian Rep. Hartzler, is to keep repeating false claims, while mounting a spurious attack on the source of the figures, the CBO.

The most tone-deaf claim, though, was Hartzler’s effort to play on the fear of the individual mandate by branding the repeal bill a “freedom bill.” On this point, she actually is right – although not in the way she meant. Repealing the ACA will insure that many individuals are indeed free; free, that is, of any access to health care outside of emergency rooms – emergency room care, I might add, that the rest of us pay for through those ballooning insurance premiums Hartzler pretends to find so horrifying when she is trying to blame them on “Obamacare.”  

Which brings us back to the question of Vicky Hartzler’s federal insurance coverage. Since she loves freedom so much, shouldn’t she be willing to share in the freedom from good health care with which she seems so willing to gift us? Is she worthier than we are?  As a student of the Christian bible, perhaps, when she considers health care reform, she should keep in mind  Matthew 7:5:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Other postings about Vicky Two-face’s opposition to the ACA:

Vicky Hartzler: health care hypocrite?

Vicky Hartzler: OK to kill people – as long as it’s not “job-killing”

I know the woman who wrote the letter in the Post-Dispatch that I commented on last Thursday. Her letter was published on Wednesday, so she was not surprised when she received a letter in the mail on Thursday from an anonymous writer who has commented on every letter she’s published over the last ten or fifteen years. Her husband gets similar letters.

She figures it’s the same guy anyway. It’s the same puerile sentiments and handwriting, though his spelling has greatly improved over the years. (He still hasn’t acquainted himself with the use of periods, though.)

She gives the writer credit for being literally as dependable as the U.S. Postal Service. She’s spoken to other people who receive the same dubious attention whenever they publish a letter, so who knows how much moola this character has dropped on the Postal Service over the last few decades.

If she ever gets a letter published and doesn’t get a response from him, she’ll figure he either died or suffered a massive stroke. At first, his mean spirited letters made her nervous, but by now she almost feels a perverse affection for the dipshit. So go ahead and sign your letters, mister. She won’t sic the cops on you.

Previously:

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

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

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City, part 3 (January 21, 2011)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D).

On Wednesday evening Senator Claire McCaskill (D) met with a small group of Missouri political bloggers for a conversation at her Kansas City office. Blue Girl (They gave us a republic… and Show Me Progress), Sean (Fired Up!), and I were in attendance. This is the fourth and final part of that conversation.

The continuation of the transcript:

….Michael Bersin: When it comes to, um, energy policy do you see any move for, um, increasing things, uh, at the federal level, support, try to expand, uh, renewable energy?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think you’re gonna continue to see support for what we’ve got in place. We’ve got some pretty good incentives in place now. We were able to extend them, um, for this new sector of our economy that does have great potential for job growth. That’s a place where we really can realize some, some, some net new jobs. And, you know, mean, Missouri’s a good example. We’ve, we’ve got things going on in Missouri that are netting jobs that are in the alternative fuel sector. Um, lots of different kinds. We’ve got electric cars, we’ve got wind farms, we’ve got ethanol, we’ve got biomass, and I think all of it is part of the equation. It’s just how much of it can we do and afford in terms of expanding it. Uh, I think the current programs, what I don’t like the idea of doing, if someone has put together a financing plan and, for a, a company based on incentives that have been given they deserve a little certainty because they can’t the financing unless they’ve got the certainty. So, we’ve gotta give enough certainty to make these incentives work. Which means we can’t be playing around with them every six months going, ah, should we or shouldn’t we? So I’d like to see us have some certainty about extending the level of incentives we have now, maintaining them, and allowing the market to get to move in and take care of itself as you have more demand and you have more profit.

Michael Bersin: But, but in, in, in the big picture is the more we invest in now it, it takes a lot of pressure off on, on, in another area. Uh, you know, if we can increase production of energy from the green sector it lessens the demand in other areas that can cause problems or, uh, alleviate shortages, or at least mitigate some of the shortages. How do you educate people about that?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I think, um, a lot of it, I mean, Dr. Chu [Secretary Steven Chu, Department of Energy] is pretty articulate about this. There is, speaking of low hanging fruit, there’s a lot of low hanging fruit in, in retrofitting buildings, in, uh, energy efficiencies, uh, weatherization of homes. People don’t realize the massive amount of energy that could be conserved and saved by some of the things that don’t require a massive capital investment. Um, that’s why I think a lot of weatherization programs have been, um, something that was very helpful during the stimulus because, not only did they put some people to work, but the end result is we’re gonna conserve some energy, we’re gonna make people’s homes more affordable for them to live in and healthier in the long run. So, um, you know, they’re, they’re now doing a lot of this on retrofitting buildings. I think this, you know, we’ve got architects here in Kansas City that have been leaders in the green building, uh, LEED qualified buildings,  going in and retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient. I think if we continue to focus on those things, it is just, I mean, I know that I disappoint some people in my party about my position on cap and trade. But, um, it is not realistic to think that right now we can get there from here without coal. We can’t. Eventually can we? I hope so. But we don’t have the technology or the ability to charge enough money to Missourians to get the technology in place to completely divorce ourselves from coal. And Missouri is one of those states that Missourians would pay a very, very high price. Working class, poor, fixed incomes, Missourians would pay a very high price. And that’s what I’m concerned about. It’s not that I have a love affair with coal. It’s that I have a love affair with people in Missouri that are trying to live on a fixed income.

Michael Bersin: But, then the steps need to be taken, taken in some way to, to sort of shift us to, to move us away [crosstalk] from that…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, we have a renew, we have a renewable standard in Missouri that was voted on by the people of Missouri. That’s good. Uh, you’ve seen meaningful steps taken by all of our utilities to move towards different, uh, uh, utility generation. I’m somebody who believes we’ve gotta do nuclear. I believe we have to do nuclear. I think it’s clean. I think it is safe. And I think it needs to be part of the equation. So I’m one of these we’ve gotta do it all. We’ve gotta clean up coal, we’ve gotta do nuclear, and we’ve gotta develop alternatives. All of it.

Staff: Guys, we’ve been going about an hour. Um, you want to, one more question each, kind of thing? I want to let you guys get out of here before it [snow] gets too [crosstalk] terrible.

[….]

Sean: Campaigns look a little different in two thousand eleven and two thousand twelve than they did in oh-five, oh-six. [Inaudible] there. But can you just reflect a little on that and what’s exciting or scary about how things have changed?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I wouldn’t carry something like this [iPad] around [crosstalk]…

Sean: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): …in two thousand five, two thousand six. I’m excited about how it’s different. I see great opportunities, uh, through the social media, through, uh, the online opportunities, through, um, doing different things that, I mean, my big thing about campaign finance has always been the way you clean up campaign finance, no matter what we pass there’ll be loopholes. The way you get big money out of politics is by getting a lot of little money in. The Internet gives us the opportunity to have thousands and thousands of people give ten bucks. That is much different than me sitting on the phone calling people that are perfect strangers saying, can you write me a check with a comma in it. I mean, that is a really weird system that I detest. So, I want to really work hard at, at utilizing all the technology that’s out there, um, you know, this, the, I don’t know why my party hasn’t been more aggressive about adopting some of the tools that are out there. If you look at the people that are tweeting in Congress, most of the ones that are, I think using it a lot effectively, are Republicans. I don’t know what that is. Um, I don’t know why that
is. I think it’s great. I think, um, uh, paying attention to things like having different kinds of media available on your Facebook page and figuring out ways to interact with people, the interactivity that you can embrace, uh, with some of the technology, I think it’s exciting. And I am busy thinking of creative ways to do things that haven’t ever been done before. Um, joining together some of the traditional campaigning with some of the new campaigning, like, you know, figuring out something to do online to figure out who wants to ride on the RV this week. You know, all different kinds of things that we could do that would, um, bring the campaign closer to folks, uh, with the technology that’s available. I think it’s gonna be fun. I’m looking forward to doing much more online that, than we even thought about doing, uh, four years ago. It’ll be a big part of the campaign.

Blue Girl: I think I read somewhere that the average contributor to Barrack Obama’s campaign gave eighty-six dollars in, in five to twenty-five dollar increments throughout the, throughout the course of the campaign.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yep, I used to tease him and say, you know, you don’t, you don’t have to pick up a phone, you just walk in, unlock this door, open the cash register and it’s full. [laughter] You know, the Internet was just on fire with people giving money in small amounts to, to Barrack Obama. [crosstalk]

Blue Girl: My, my college age [crosstalk]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): It was very exciting. [crosstalk]

Blue Girl: …kids were hitting the [crosstalk], were hitting that button.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Mine, too! With my money!

Blue Girl: Yeah!

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Because I’d, you know, they get allowance, right?

Blue Girl: Uh, huh.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): And I’d look and I’d go, what is this? And, well, and they, in fact, this last cycle I noticed my daughter gave contributions. I, I said, who are these candidates? She said, they’re people I believe in. And I said, well, what about people in Missouri? She goes, mom, I don’t live in Missouri [inaudible]. [laughter]

Blue Girl: Uh, okay. Do you think we’re ever gonna see anybody go to jail or any of the money come back from the, from the fraudulent contracts like, uh, uh, the, when, when projects in Afghanistan are falling apart before they’re complete that’s not poor stewardship on the part of the Afghans, that’s shoddy construction. I’ll, I tell you what I want to see. I want to see one sentence of legislation passed so Afghan companies can be paid directly by the military instead of mandating a third party, usually a U.S. company, that may or may not pay for the labor at the end, at the end of the con. You know, they may or may not fulfill the contract. They may or may not live up to their financial obligations to the Afghan company. Who slipped that line in for their buddies?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, there, there, as you well know, um, there are, uh, books that have been written and will continue to be written about contract abuses in a contingency. It has obviously been a theme of my time in the Senate. It’s not the stuff that most people are interested in. I am vitally interested in it. And I think we’ve gotten the military’s attention. Um, I can tell you the difference in my trip on contracting oversight to Iraq in two thousand and seven and to Afghanistan in two thousand and ten were dramatically different. Um, my questions could at least be answered. There was someone who had the answer. There, they, they had an idea of how many contractors were in the country. They had an idea of how much money was being spent. I mean, when I went to Iraq it was jaw dropping how little they knew and how little oversight was really going on. So, not that we need to be satisfied with the progress that has been made, but there has been some progress made. Having said that, we are saddled with a very big challenge. And that is, spending way, way more money in a country that it has in gross domestic product.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I mean, their GDP is very small and we are flooding their country with money and it is inherently corrupt [crosstalk].

Blue Girl: Corrupting.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): So, when you have a coun, country that is already riddled with corruption and you bring a lot of money in it is really, really hard to figure out how you do what you need to do to stabilize the country without losing a lot through fraud and a lot through just downright just walking away with the cash. But, um, there are a number of criminal investigations ongoing and that’s why I felt so strongly about removing the Special Inspector General [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): He was not up for the job. I think we now are in a position to get a really strong inspector general that has a law enforcement background. Um, somewhat like the [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Are they gonna consult with you on that? [crosstalk]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): …inspector general  like we got over TARP who has experience in criminal prosecutions and will not only be looking to see what is going on with the contracts but where is there somebody that needs to go to jail.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): And you’re exactly right. I mean, it, it, you know, we’ve gotta quit giving performance bonuses to bad contractors. And instead, we need to be putting corrupt contractors in prison.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): That’s what we need to be doing.

Blue Girl: I agree.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): That’s the example [crosstalk] we need to set.

Blue Girl: I agree…

[….]

Previously:

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

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

Senator Claire McCaskill (D).

On Wednesday evening Senator Claire McCaskill (D) met with a small group of Missouri political bloggers for a conversation at her Kansas City office. This is the third part of that conversation.

The continuation of the transcript:

….Michael Bersin: And, but in your experience, you did a lot of town halls about health care. And, uh, some of your colleagues did, in, in the Senate, did anybody, were you aware of anybody else doing the kinds of things that you did? And…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I mean, a few did. But, the, the, the prevailing wisdom in the, in Washington was don’t go do town halls.

Michael Bersin: But, and I, I heard you do several of those and you used it, and sometimes the, the crowd was boisterous, we’ll say, but you always used it as an opportunity to educate people. And, and that seemed like it was a, a, a missed kind of, uh, opportunity for some of your, your colleagues in the Senate to, to actually go out and teach [crosstalk] people. I was going…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I wish we would have had a nationally televised town hall on the health care bill. I would have loved us to have some prime, you know. Let’s do a, a prime time debate on the health care bill between, you know, uh, Barack Obama and John McCain. You know, um, seriously, I just think if we would have done, if we would have used what the media wanted to cover which was the fight, if we’d have used that opportunity, I mean people wanted to cover the town halls ’cause they sensed there was a conflict. And, you know, I welcome that because I thought it was important for me to get out there and not to shirk away from that. But that’s the, just one example, and it’s a little example, there’s lots of things we could have done. That we could have embraced the conflict and used it to illuminate the differences between what they were saying and what the reality really was. But, we, we can’t get around one thing. The mandate is very, very, very unpopular. Nobody, I shouldn’t say nobody, most Missourians do not like the government using the word shall. They just don’t like it.

Michael Bersin: But, is, is there any other  way, you know, you, and I heard you describe this. You say, well, you can’t have, you know, pre-existing condition as something that, that, you know, you take care of and then somebody says, well, I’m not gonna have insurance until my pre-existing condition comes up [crosstalk] [inaudible]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Right. And I’m not gonna get insurance until I get sick. Be like telling people you can go get car insurance after you’ve had a wreck. I mean, who’d buy car insurance, right? Now, it’s go, if we did that it’d make health insurance in a private market, which is what we passed, very, very expensive. So the issue is how do we get health people in the pool without saying the word shall? And I’m exploring it right now.

Michael Bersin: But.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think there is a way. If we would use Medicare Part D as a model, not how much we made the pharmaceutical companies rich or the insurance companies rich, but as a model in terms of an enrollment period. Seniors know they’ve got to sign up for Medicare D, they’ve got like a month at the end of every year, they’ve gotta sign up. And if they don’t, it’s cost ’em more. We could do that with this. We could say, you’ve got an enrollment period. Now, if you don’t enroll, when you get insurance it’s gonna be thirty percent more ex, expensive. Um, and actually do it that way so that you’re, so you don’t have the shall, you shall buy something. Rather, if you don’t buy something it’s gonna be a lot more expensive. And I think most Americans want affordable health care insurance. So if you have it I think most Americans are going to buy it as long as they know if I don’t I’m not gonna be, be able to get it later except for a lot more money.

Michael Bersin: Yeah, and, but part of it is, you know, people use the, kind of, the rhetoric to say, well, if, if I’m healthy I don’t need it. But, you know, part of it is educating people, say, well, sometimes you might think you’re healthy or something comes up that’s unexpected then, then what? And, and there was not a lot of it, you know, [inaudible] education about that. We just heard the government [crosstalk]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Right.

Michael Bersin: …is going to make you do this.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): But, the example we should have used more often is, um, a thirty-two year old single guy who really wants a new Harley. Really wants a new Harley. And, right now, he can pay almost the cost of a payment of the new Harley for health insurance or he can get a new Harley. So he gets the new Harley and says, I don’t need health insurance. And then, six months later, he’s driving the new Harley and he gets broadsided. And he has traumatic brain injuries and he goes to the hospital. Well, who pays for that? You know, obviously, we all pay for that. And, is that really taking responsibility? Is that the personal responsibility that Sarah Palin likes to talk about? Is that people being accountable for their own lives? Or is that using the welfare state to take care of you as opposed to taking personal responsibility? Truth be known, he probably couldn’t afford the Harley until he could afford health insurance.

Michael Bersin: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Especially under the plan we passed, because you get help buying the health insurance so that you never have to spend too much of your income on health insurance. So I, I think that, you know, if we can do a better job of talking about that element of personal  responsibility plus making it a financial disincentive to not buy it I think we could possibly avoid the legal fight over the mandate and get rid of that word shall that really rubs, um, Missourians the wrong way, I mean, ’cause it’s in our DNA in Missouri not to trust the government.

Sean:  Do you see other places where the health care bill’s gonna be modified or changed? Or, what is gonna be substantive discussion, [crosstalk] not just [inaudible]?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think we’ll do something about the ten ninety-nine problem. Um, I think that that was, uh, there wasn’t enough thought given to the burden that would place on most businesses, not the great big guys, but most businesses having to keep track of ten ninety-nines for all these vendors over a certain amount, um, that, that is too much.  And so there’ve been several proposals, in fact, we had several proposals to already fix it. And the Republicans [crosstalk] blocked it.

Sean: Sure.

Michael Bersin: Because they didn’t want to [crosstalk]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Fix it.

Michael Bersin: …lose, lose a club. [crosstalk][inaudible]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, well, they voted against the small business bill right before the election. They didn’t want to be seen as agreeing that we could ever do anything to help small business. They were on a kind of a roll that we were all against business and that we were all about socialism and we were all taking, you know, the government was gonna take over everything. In truth we did a net, outside of the Bush tax cuts, we did a net f
our hundred billion dollars in tax cuts to working families, middle class, and small businesses. Um, all very targeted. But, they, you know,  they were counting on the fact that everyone was believing the narrative that we were overreaching, that government was taking over everything, that we didn’t care about the free market and, so that’s why I think that, that happened. But I think we’ll fix the ten ninety-nine. Um, you know, I, those are the two things right now that I think are bubbling up the most.

Sean: And you mentioned crop insurance. As the next farm bill’s put together you think they’re gonna be, do you see substantive changes actually happening? Or is it just the can getting kicked down the road again?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, I, you know, I think, again, we’ll have discussions about, um, how much income should someone have and still get a check from the government. Um, you know, we’re subsidizing Ag sector now. Um, but we subsidize every sector. So, I, you know, I think we’ve got to, we’ve got to hold back how much the government is doing but we gotta be fair. We can’t continue to subsidize the oil sector and not subsidize the sugar, you know. And so I think, but we need to look at all of ’em and see how we can shrink the programs so that they’re more affordable. And, it’s, it’s always a slightly awkward moment when someone stands up at a rural town hall and goes on and on about the government doing too much and has reached too far. And then I ask the question, how many people in the room got a check from the government last year? And, obviously, in rural Missouri there’s a lot of farmers that get significant help from the federal government. And there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But, you can’t be saying, I want the federal government to do nothing except when it’s a program that helps me.

Sean: Sure.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): That’s the mentality that’s gotten us in this mess in the first place.  You go cut somebody else’s program, don’t touch mine. I think we’ve got to cut everybody’s program [crosstalk].

Blue Girl: Don’t help those people [crosstalk].

Sean:  I’m from [inaudible], I understand that, [crosstalk] that dynamic.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Right. [crosstalk] Right, it’s really interesting because in rural Missouri they want to think all of the federal government money is going to the urban areas. And in the urban areas, they want to think all of the federal money is going to the farm program. Truth is, that there is a lot of federal money going everywhere. [laughter] [crosstalk] You probably need to shrink all of it.

Michael Bersin: But, but one of the interesting things that’s, that’s, uh, that you always see is when you start to see that the states which are net, uh, contributors to the federal budget and states that are net takers. And people are sort of stunned by that. That, you know, states that you would think that, that have the rhetoric of we don’t want the government to do anything or [crosstalk][inaudible]…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Actually getting more from the government than they’re paying in.

Michael Bersin: …than they’re paying in.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): They’re, they’re, they’re, they’re payer, they’re, they’re the plus states rather [crosstalk] than the donor states.

Michael Bersin: [inaudible] Yes, than the donors, yeah….

A transcript of the final part of our conversation will follow in the next day.

On a party line vote Tuesday, the Missouri Senate Rules Committee sent a nonbinding resolution to the full Senate urging Attorney General Chris Koster to join their lawsuit declaring that the federal government has no right to penalize people or businesses for not having health insurance. The hearing was meant to be quick and dirty, with no public input, just getting the thing out of committee, so that the most adamant of the Republican senators could paint their faces white and do a little kabuki on the Senate floor. (Which they did on Wednesday, handily passing the resolution.)

As it turned out, though, the Tuesday hearing was not quick and dirty. Sixty activists who had gotten wind of the hearing showed up to testify against it. Afterwards several of them talked to its target, Attorney General Chris Koster, because they had gotten wind that he is considering doing as the resolution urges and joining the lawsuit against the federal government. Here’s what he told them:

Welcome, and I appreciate your interest in this. It is, as you know … we have… this office has tried to maintain a nonpolitical posture with regard to this going forth. The reality is we have had aggressive lobbying on behalf of the proponents of health care. The White House has asked us to become involved and to sign amicus briefs at various points. And we’ve stayed out of that and said no to proponents. We’ve also said no to opponents of this. We’ve had many groups such as yours who feel opposite on this matter from your own advocacy who’ve come and implored us to get involved.

Our view is, as you may know, I’ve come out of the legislature. I was over there on the Senate side four years. We’ve tried to run this organization here in a very nonpartisan way. If a Democratic officeholder makes a request, a research request or whatnot, we jump to it. If a Republican asks us for assistance, we try and give both sides of the political aisle absolutely the same deference and energy and courtesy.

We have not asked for this to come to our door–it is being brought to our door by the General Assembly–and have resisted politicizing this issue over the past twelve, well eleven months now. (I think it passed in February of ’10.) That having been said, I do have a constitutional obligation to act as general counsel for the government. No matter what my personal views on an issue are, that if the General Assembly makes a request that I have to be cognizant of it and take it seriously. A lawyer that does not listen to his clients’ requests, you know, is probably not … that lawyer is not fully cognizant of what his duties are. I do have that role.

This job, the people of this state do not want a partisan Democrat or a partisan Republican as Attorney General. They just don’t. They want just sort of a standard cop as AG, someone who’s just going to call the facts as they are. So if the General Assembly makes a request, I have to at least acknowledge that the organization that speaks on behalf of people of the state–and who holds the budget for this office and can snap off the oxygen to this office very quickly and there’s no one over there who can stop it–I have to at least be cognizant of what is going on over there.

My hope is that they will act very judiciously. I don’t know … my sense is that a few minutes ago they passed it out of committee. Is that right? 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.

But I want you to know that I’m very cognizant of your voice in this as well. I’ve been getting a lot of input from citizens on both sides of this issue, lots and lots of input. And we are listening. And that is, I think, at the end of the day, my job. I have to listen.

I get Koster’s point that as the AG he’s supposed to act in a nonpartisan manner, offering equal courtesy and research services, for example, to elected officials from each party. I also get it that he didn’t ask to get embroiled in this. He’s stuck in the middle. And he’d be remiss, as general counsel for the government, if he didn’t take seriously a resolution from government officials urging action on his part. Furthermore, I’m not silly enough to tell him not to worry about budgetary reprisals if he ignores the resolution.

I’d like to think that, given his druthers, he’d want the federal government to protect citizens against rapacious health insurance companies. That’s one of the roles of good government. But I don’t for sure know that Koster sees the issue that way, especially considering his recent allegiance to the other party. All I can say is that if he’s looking for a way to keep this cup from passing to him, he should be investigating the costs of the suit. Jane Cunningham (R-Chesterfied), the sponsor of the resolution, claimed it would not cost the state anything. I don’t mean to be cynical, but Republicans have been known to be less than truthful. Sen. Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City) was skeptical:

“I’m going to have to do some of my own checking, because I find it absolutely unfathomable that Missouri could get involved in a federal lawsuit and it wouldn’t cost us a penny,” Justus said. “That just doesn’t make any sense.”

The other way out for Koster, and this is the one he mentioned to activists on Tuesday, is that Senate Republicans might not be unified on this question anyway. I get the sense that if he gets the sense that the entire Senate won’t be up in arms if he refuses, then … maybe he’ll refuse.

So the 64 dollar question is, how did the vote go on Wednesday? Yes, it passed, but not to resounding huzzahs. Missourinet describes the voice vote this way:

Only about ten voices were heard voting “aye” in the senate…Three voices were heard saying “no”   Most of the members had left the chamber before the vote was taken. The Senate has 33 members.

Okay, so ten of the 26 Republicans in the Senate bothered to vote. I hear their attitude loud and clear. How about you, Mister Koster?