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 favor health care reform, but I don’t know that he would for sure, 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?

Yesterday 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. Eli Yokley (PoliticMo) was unable to attend due to the heavy snowfall.

Senator McCaskill spoke with us and answered questions on the record for almost an hour in her office conference room.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D).

The first part of our conversation covered the deficit and debt, newly elected Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) and earmarks, spending caps, filibuster reform, secret holds, getting a bipartisan date for the State of the Union address, and moderate republicans.

The transcript:

Sean (Fired Up!): [….] …Where do you see things going next?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, there have been a lot of, um, proposals and discussion and maybe some compromises as it relates to how we deal with the deficit and the debt. I think that clearly, um, was on a lot of folk’s mind in, in this election. And I think that the Republican majority in the Senate [sic] is gonna dictate that a significant amount of our time is spent on that. And that, and the Republicans in the Senate, I mean, we’ve got pretty evenly divided Senate now. I think that what we’ll have, um, uh, I’m hopeful that the lame duck is an indication that some of the moderate Republicans are willing to participate again. What we saw during the lame duck was moderate Republicans, you know, I watched Dick Lugar on the START Treaty. I watched, um, him, you know, work the START Treaty and I watched some of the moderates coming to him immediately and saying, yes, we’re for it, and how that kind of began to get critical mass. It’d been a long time since we’d seen that. Um, it, and the more evenly divided Senate means that they can’t just point fingers, especially now, with, with the House. So, one of two things is gonna happen. Either the House will overreach and nothing will happen, or, uh, the public will begin to react if the House does overreach and that will put more pressure on the Senate to try to come up with some reasonable compromises then, that then will go back to the House to see if they’ll accept or reject them. And I just don’t know how, how [many] rigid ideologues have been elected. I assume they’re pretty rigid ideologues in the House, but I don’t know that for a fact, I mean.  I was surprised when Vicky Hartzler told me that she would take earmarks, she would seek earmarks, so.

Sean: Yeah, they change their opinions pretty quickly on the deficit and everything else, with…

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, well, the hundred billion dollars they said they were gonna cut, let’s see if they do it. [crosstalk] And if they do, we’ll look forward, we’ll see if they are willing to make specific cuts, um.

Blue Girl (Show Me Progress and They gave us a republic…): Shake the couch cushions at the Pentagon.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, that was what  I, that’s what I liked about the Sessions/McCaskill proposal, was that it, um, was a spending cap not on discretionary domestic alone, but defense.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): And we got every single Republican to vote for a cap on spending. Defense spending. And that’s what was so frustrating to me, that I couldn’t convince my caucus that this was an, an incredible opportunity for us to take the mantle of being responsible about spending because it wasn’t a cut, it was a cap. It was similar to what we had during the nineties and, you know, how [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: What did you not like about the nineties, the peace or the prosperity?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, right. Right, so, it, um, it, I think that we’ll get, I’m gonna continue to work on the Sessions/McCaskill spending and I’ll think we’ll get it passed. The question is, will that be enough for this Congress? Or will they want more, uh, will they want a more aggressive cap? And, um, we’ll see. Okay.

Blue Girl: One in nine federal judgeships, first question here, uh, they, you know, Congress, the hundred eleventh adjourned before the Senate could even consider hundreds of bills, uh, nothing’s been getting done, uh, this did not happen because it takes sixty votes to break a filibuster but because the minority can force the entire Senate to waste up to thirty hours ever, ever, every time the Senate holds a vote. What reforms do you support to stop this obstruction of even the most uncontroversial business?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Um, well the good news is that we did get twenty-two of them through, um, judges through, uh, by, by unanimous consent right before we adjourned. So, that’s good. Um, I do think the secret hold thing is really important because if you own it then you gotta explain it. And what happens is these guys hold these things secretly and then they, of course, vote for the nominees when they’re for, forced to.

Blue Girl: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): So, you having the ability just to gum things up without anybody ever taking ownership is a huge problem. I am optimistic that we are gonna get the rule change on secret holds.  Um, I think that is really hard for the other side to justify as they’re preaching transparency and accountability. I don’t know how they don’t accept a change in the rules to do away with the secret hold. And I think you do away with the secret hold it has an amazing ability to clean some of this stuff up. Now, do we make the changes in the filibuster? I would love to see the people who are filibustering have to be the ones to produce the forty. I’d love to see the people who are doing the filibustering have to hold the floor. I’d love for the people to see an actual filibuster.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Instead of the procedural  way they’ve done it,  which is they quietly object and then they kind of skulk off and the majority is left there to hold the floor and, and for the thirty hours and the staff [crosstalk] is there and so [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: They should read about the Polish Sejm.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Uh, yeah. So, so, um, but the question is, are we willing to break what has been traditional precedent in the Senate and change the rules by a simple majority vote? And once we do that then we need to realize that it can always be done. And that means that the Republicans could do the same thing if they took the majority in two years. And we have to realize the rules they may want to change may not be as reasonable and modest as the rule changes we want. [crosstalk]

Michael Bersin, Show Me Progress: But does, but does anybody expect that, you know, given their past behavior that they wouldn’t do that anyway?

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think it’s really hard for them to do that anyway. I think it’s very hard. I think, um, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s kind of what happened with the nuclear option. As you remember, there was a group of Republicans that wanted to do this when Democrats, uh, were blocking Bush’s judicial nominees. And it was in fact a group of moderate Republicans that said, no, we’re not gonna do this. And it didn’t happen. If it had happened I don’t know, you know, we probably would have had some significant rule changes along the lines that a lot of people are talking about now. You know, the Republicans make the point, and it is a valid point, how often we fill the tree. Um, we have fi
lled the tree a lot. We have not given the Republicans an opportunity to offer amendments and so it’s almost like an escalating warfare here. Um, and the reason that we fill the tree is because they’re, I think the leadership thought it was a good idea to keep us from having to waste time on voting on amendments that were not germane. What I affectionately call the gotcha amendments.  And [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Poison pills.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): The, yeah, poison pills. Um, at the end of the day. It’s probably what you signed up for when you go to the United States Senate, that you’ve got to cast difficult votes. And I’m one of the senators that is encouraging leadership to not always fill the tree, to allow open amendment process. Um, so, we’ll see what happens on the rules. But I, I’m gonna be surpri, we’ve all signed  a letter  saying we want these rule changes. And I am supporting these rule changes. And I’m hopeful these rule changes happen. Um, but if they don’t I think we’ve got to, you know, decide, um, how far are we willing to go and what are the consequences of that long term for the Senate and for the minority, not just in the current scenario.

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.

Blue Girl: Uh, how ’bout, uh, Republicans have shown a willingness to cooperate with Democrats hen it’s in their interest to do so. Do you see any pressure at all on Republicans from their base or elsewhere to work cooperatively with Democrats on solving problems, or are the incentives all the other way, tempting Republicans to make the next two years a repeat of the last two by jockeying for position in twelve and stopping Democrats in their tracks?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, I think, um, people need to remember that some of the Republicans that were elected were not elected from red states. Um, you have Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, you have Mark Kirk from Illinois. I mean, imagine how Mark Kirk feels. If he goes out to Washington and has a very aggressive I follow the Republican party no matter what, you know, I’m, I’m all for the right wing agenda, he has real problems in Illinois. So, um, what, what really gets compromise is an evenly divided Senate with a healthy number of moderates in both parties. Uh, the moderate Republicans increased somewhat. Now, we lost some moderate Republicans in primaries. But Lisa [Murkowski] survived.  You, you know, you’ve got Olympia [Snowe], You’ve got Susan [Collins]. Now you have, you know, Scott Brown who’s got to face election in Massachusetts. You’ve got Mark Kirk who has to face an election in, uh, Illinois. You’ve got Toomey who has to face an election in Pennsylvania. So, as you look at those states, um, I have to believe that those people are going to be willing to cooperate and compromise, try to see if we can find some common ground. I think, I’m more optimistic today than I was a year ago….

Transcripts of the remainder of our conversation will follow over the next few days.

Here are the links to the rest of the transcripts:

Part II

Part III

Part IV

A letter in the Wednesday Post-Dispatch deserves comment.

For whom does Sen. Blunt work?

Shame on U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., for choosing to stand on the side of powerful corporations instead of working for the people who elected him (“Blunt blasts EPA for Ameren lawsuit,” Jan. 14).

Members of Congress have the moral responsibility to protect the health and safety of all Americans, and this includes keeping cancer-causing pollutants out of our air.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, despite attacks on it from people like Mr. Blunt, works to keep our air and water clean enough to sustain life. Scientists at the EPA know that in an average year a typical coal plant emits almost 4 million tons of carbon dioxide, not to mention doses of arsenic, mercury, lead and other heavy metals.

So when Ameren chooses its own wealth over our well being, our elected official should be outraged. Instead, the relationship between many of our elected representatives and corporate lobbyists has become almost incestuous.

We should ask Mr. Blunt if he works for us or for Ameren Missouri.

[italics mine]

Note that the letter writer has been listening to the advice dished out on this site by sarah jo, who summarized the Core Progressive Message, including this:

Progressives believe that the benefits of economic production should be shared by those who actually do the work and produce the wealth, not just by shareholders and top executives.

Progressives believe that the moral mission of government includes the protection and empowerment of citizens.  Protection includes education of all of its citizens,  defense against inhumane working conditions, medical care when needed,  access to safe food, air and water,  and a national defense and intelligence infrastructure commensurate with changing world conditions.

Sarah jo, a student of George Lakoff, recommends that whenever we criticize the right we should ALWAYS BEGIN BY STATING THE UNDERLYING MORALITY OF OUR POSITION. If you look at the italicized passages, you’ll see that the letter writer has done that. When it comes to effective communication with those who aren’t already in one’s own camp, Republicans have spent billions to give themselves a Ph.D. in mass psychology and linguistics. We’re in the second grade. But you get to skip a grade if you develop the presence of mind to always state the underlying morality of your position whenever you are presenting the lefty point of view. I’m going to do that–and bask in being a fourth grader.

Of course, most of the readers on this site implicitly understand that morality already, so I won’t be informing you of something you didn’t know. But, and here’s the thing, I suspect that we need to see this linguistic paradigm practiced. That’s the only way that the need for making our morality explicit to others will sink in. Otherwise, if you just read about it once, the admonition will strike you as “Yeah, yeah, she’s probably right.” And the idea will go no further.

This is an experiment. I don’t know whether I’ll find it too klunky to do it faithfully on this site. But I’ll try it, and I invite you to let me know how well you think it works–or doesn’t. (My sensibilities aren’t delicate. Speak up.)  

In 2008 Brack Obama was elected president with almost 53% of the popular vote in an election with such a huge turnout (56.8%) that he won with “the most votes for a presidential candidate in American history.” He ran promising to fix our broken health care system.

In the fall of 2010 Republicans recaptured the House of representatives in an election in which 42% of the population turned out. The percentage of Americans voting for Republicans was, obviously, south of that 42%. Not much of a mandate for Republicans really.  

The GOP spent the last two years fighting health care reform tooth and nail, conducting a full-court press propaganda blitz, misrepresenting it in countless ways, and often lying about it outright – remember death panels? In spite of the media noise they generated, just recently, when Americans were polled about their perceptions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and were offered a full range of options so that those who disapprove of it were allowed to specify whether they do so because it doesn’t go far enough or because it does too much, only around 26% wanted it repealed.

Nevertheless, today the GOP-controlled House will vote to repeal the ACA. The repeal vote will go nowhere; it is a largely symbolic gesture meant to generate even more media smoke, but it will no doubt be followed by numerous efforts to chip away and nullify the essence of the ACA or defund it. The propaganda will continue. The only sure thing is that any changes that the GOP will attempt to enact will benefit the bottom line of their clients in the insurance industry in one way or another.

Eager to get in on the show, Missouri lawmakers yesterday held hearings on SR 27, a non-binding resolution calling on Attorney General Koster to join a frivolous lawsuit filed against the ACA by the Attorneys General of several other states. In spite of the 60 or so citizens who traveled to the capitol to testify in favor of the ACA, the nonbinding resolution passed out of the the Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics Committee by a 5-2 vote. Yay, Missouri. Once again our Republican-controlled legislature plays to the peanut gallery.  

As I contemplate this madness, I can’t help thinking about a woman I met at a a large, rambunctuous Tea Party meeting with one of Claire McCaskill’s staffers. The meeting had been organized by officials of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) to discuss the then incipient health care reform. She was one of the less shrill attendees, most of whom were shouting, hooting and waving their Gadsden flags or sporting overtly racialized, comic Obama posters throughout much of the meeting.

This woman carried a poster thanking her insurance company for the survival of her twin daughters who were also in attendance. She was friendly and open and when I complimented her on her daughters’ charming, matching outfits, she told me their story. They had survived serious birth complications because of excellent medical care made possible by the great insurance that her husband’s employer provided. She was attending the meeting because she feared that the heath care reform would destroy her access to that insurance. I wonder today if she is feeling all smug and full of achievement pleased when she reads about the efforts of our elected representatives to undo the ACA that she so vociferously opposed in the name of her “wonderful” insurance.  

I also thought of her late last fall as I went through the annual process of reconfirming the choice of insurance plan that my husband’s employer provides for us. When we came to St. Louis in 2002, we found that the level of insurance that we had come to take for granted was not on offer, although the plans were still more or less adequate. Over the past few years, though, that level of adequacy has started to erode. Co-pays on all plans have risen drastically, at one point vision coverage was withdrawn and then reinstated, and the amount that the insurance company will actually pay for ostensibly fully covered procedures has dwindled so that I am left completing payment (to “in-network” doctors, no less). This is not an isolated phenomenon; I have learned from former colleagues that my old employer is also cutting health benefits back in the same way.

Nor is this niggling retrenchment leading to efficient, economical care. To give you just one example, in the past, I have opted for physical therapy in place of expensive testing and surgery for back and other joint problems. I have found it to be an excellent alternative which is actually also much less costly than other approaches. This year when, after some minor surgery, my doctor recommended a fairly intense course of physical therapy, I had to refuse it because the hefty co-pays that had been newly instituted would have been prohibitive given the number of sessions the therapist thought I needed. In the past, my insurance paid in full for up to ten weeks of physical therapy. As a consequence of this change, meant to discourage frills and cut costs for my husband’s employer I am sure, I will not be requesting physical therapy as my first line of attack in the future – regardless of the fact that it would actually cost the insurance company less than other fully covered procedures.

I wonder how long my Tea Party mother and her family will enjoy the excellent insurance coverage that inspired her loyalty? Because the types of changes that I have experienced are on the way for most of us and will probably become more extreme if health care costs continue their vertiginous trajectory. And in spite of what some claim, they were well underway long before “Obamacare” was even thought of. The number of uninsured increased by 2.5 million in 2009. Just a few weeks ago, we learned that former Post-Dispatch employees who had taken early retirement buyouts were having the health care benefits they had been promised yanked away; such stories are becoming less and less uncommon (see, for instance, here and here).

This escalating erosion of our access to good health care is what we face if the GOP manages to return us to the former status quo, or, worse, amend the ACA to feed what Matthew Iglesias argues is already heavily subsidized “free market health care.” And yet the show goes on. Pragmatic responses to our problems are met with ideological catch-phrases and seriously misapplied labels – “socialistic” comes to mind. I am afraid that I think that Ezra Klein is perhaps somewhat naive when, speaking of the repeal effort, he says*:

I hope this is just a temporary partisan reaction to the specter of a major victory for President Obama and not a view into what the GOP does when faced with a problem where the solutio
ns don’t neatly fit their worldview.

These fools are long past the simple tantrums they threw when they lost their big showdown with the socialistic leftists who foisted this centrist, Republican-lite health care reform on us.

*Sentence ending revised somewhat for clarity.

Paul Krugman says that our political divisions won’t be easily resolved because they’re based on two different moralities:

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state – a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net – morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

Kate Lovelady, the leader of the Ethical Society of St. Louis, spoke about that same division in regards to Social Security. At a December workshop sponsored by the Alliance for Retired Americans, she calmly laid out her arguments, with a measure of empathy we’d do well to match … those of us who have the patience.

I hope you’ll enjoy (or else excuse) what I’ve added to reinforce Lovelady’s ideas.

Both Krugman and Lovelady stress what we Lefties need to emphasize in every conversation we have with independents and right wingers as well: the moral imperatives that underlie our political opinions. A society that pulls together so that the largest possible number reap the benefits is morally superior to, as well as more economically stable than, one that adheres to the idea that everybody is out for himself and may the Devil take the hindmost.

Lovelady said it well:

Although it can be tempting to be angry with people who want to privatize or to do away with Social Security, it might be more helpful to have pity on them. Most of them are deluded by a fantasy that they can gamble and win big.

……..

So we need to care enough to save the privatizers from themselves, as well as to make sure that they don’t hurt the rest of us.

She speaks in the spirit of those prophets of social unity, Gandhi and King.  

On January 25, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress, and the nation, to deliver the State of the Union address and there is a lot of apprehension among those of us on the left. Will the President commit political suicide by grabbing hold of that so-called “third rail” of American politics, and embrace cuts to Social Security? Or will he keep his campaign promise to preserve and protect the most successful and popular social program in the history of the nation? During the campaign, he promised to fight against cuts to benefits, cuts to Cost of Living Adjustments and efforts to raise the retirement age. He also vowed to strengthen the program by raising the cap and paying Social Security taxes on those earning over $250,000 per year (currently, Social Security taxes are paid only on the first $107,000 of earnings.) He reiterated those promises in his weekly address on August 15, in which he commemorated the signing of the legislation into law by FDR 75 years before:

“I’d have thought that debate would’ve been put to rest once and for all by the financial crisis we’ve just experienced. I’d have thought, after being reminded how quickly the stock market can tumble, after seeing the wealth people worked a lifetime to earn wiped out in a matter of days, that no one would want to place bets with Social Security on Wall Street; that everyone would understand why we need to be prudent about investing the retirement money of tens of millions of Americans.

“But some Republican leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They’re pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. It’s right up there on their to-do list with repealing some of the Medicare benefits and reforms that are adding at least a dozen years to the fiscal health of Medicare — the single longest extension in history.

“That agenda is wrong for seniors, it’s wrong for America, and I won’t let it happen. Not while I’m President. I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble your Social Security on Wall Street.”

Yet a month later when I questioned David Plouffe about the President’s committment to Social Security at the Harkin Steak Fry, I got a non-answer that made chills run up my spine…”They want to weaken and destroy it. We want to fix it.”

Try that answer on someone who doesn’t know that it doesn’t need fixing because it ain’t broke, and who went to school back when they taught us how to diagram sentences so we can decypher what those who look at the trust fund with a lustful, impure eye are really saying: “In order to avoid future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. Ditto raising the retirement age.”

Didn’t we put some people in military prison for destroying villages in order to save them?

The fact of the matter is, Social Security is not only not responsible for our deficit woes, it is independent of the deficit and it is solvent for decades. Period. Full stop.

That CBO report finds that the Social Security trustfund, without changing a thing, will be able to make full payouts through 2039 — it should also be noted that the full payout projections have been pushed downward by the economic downturn of the last couple of years, and those numbers should start moving the other way as the economy recovers. And if that isn’t the case, we have a lot bigger problems than Social Security coming down the pike.

And even if the trust fund were to run out, Social Security would still be in pretty good shape. First of all, the trust fund is a relatively recent creation. It was establisned in 1983, three years before the baby boomers started turning forty, to deal with the demographic bulge headed Social Security’s way in 2011. The last boomers will retire in 2029, ten years before the trust fund is currently projected to be depleted. Essentially, when the trust fund runs dry, it will coincide with the fact that it’s mission will be, for the most part, complete. It will have eased the strain caused by the retirement of the baby boom.

The depletion of the Social Security trust fund is not a pending disaster, it’s by design. The fact of the matter is, in case you are one of the people in this country to whom facts matter, Social Security is a self funding entity, independent of the general fund. It funds itself entirely through payroll taxes, and so long as payroll taxes are collected, retirees will get their checks. The only way that changes is if Congress acts to stop collecting payroll taxes or to outright abolish the program.

Faced with that reality, those who oppose Social Security tend to go into “yeah, but…” mode and clutch at their pearls while they try in vain not to hyperventilate over a projected $4.5 trillion-with-a-t hole in Social Securities budget seventy five years down the road.

But this, too, is a faulty argument because a very modest increase — 1% or less — in the amount of payroll tax withheld from workers wages would not only fill that hole, it would put the program on a sound footing “indefinitely.”

They really stick their fingers in their ears and sing “la la la la la! I can’t hear you!” when it is pointed out to them that $4.5 trillion is about the same cost, over the same period of time, of permanently extending the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% of earners.

But that isn’t the end of their subterfuge! Their next ploy is to pretend that Medicare and Social Security are the same thing. They aren’t. They are totally separate entities and they are funded via different mechanisms. Medicare does have problems, but they trace to runaway costs in our broken healthcare system, not to Social Security. Pretending the two are one and the same is either fundamental ignorance or deliberate, willful dishonesty. There is no other option.

Elected leaders embracing cuts to Social Security by either reducing the amount of benefit paid or raising the retirement age are, therefore, either stupid, or lying. In neither instance should they be making decisions that affect millions of Americans. And that goes double for those who parrot the BS knowing full well it’s just that…BS.

The usual tenther suspects have proposed a state’s rights constitutional convention, strictly limited to one amendemnt:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 9

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BARNES (Sponsor), JONES (89), RICHARDSON, BROWN (85), CROSS, McCAHERTY, BERNSKOETTER, BROWN (116), SMITH (150), FREDERICK, LANT, FITZWATER, WYATT, NANCE, BERRY, REIBOLDT, DIEHL, RIDDLE, ELMER, JONES (117) AND COOKSON (Co-sponsors).

0420L.02I

AN ACT

Relating to the calling of an amendment convention.

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

           WHEREAS, Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides that “on application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states” the calling of a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to such Constitution is authorized; and

           WHEREAS, any amendment proposed by the convention “shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part” of the Constitution of the United States “when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress”; and

           WHEREAS, in the interests of preserving principles of federalism and state sovereignty, such an amendment convention should be restricted to considering the following amendment only:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”; and

           WHEREAS, this resolution is submitted as an official application by the State of Missouri, which when joined by two-thirds of the several states, shall authorize the calling of an amendment convention for the purpose stated in this resolution:

           NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-sixth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby apply and make application to the Congress of the United States to call an amendment convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and the Missouri Delegation to such convention, when called, shall propose the following amendment:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives prepare copies of this resolution for the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each presiding officer of each state legislative chamber in the United States.

[underline emphasis added]

“…Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed…”

Wouldn’t it be easier to cater to their angry teabaggers base and get their corporate shills to dump an obscene amount of money into an election to take over Congress? Oh, wait…

Repeal. They have a list.

Oh, brother:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 198

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES DENISON (Sponsor), HOUGH, DUGGER, COX, KELLY (24), WALLINGFORD, KORMAN, BRANDOM, GATSCHENBERGER, POLLOCK, RUZICKA, FRANZ, SCHNEIDER, STREAM, LEARA, NOLTE, DIEHL, SHUMAKE, ROWLAND, FUNDERBURK, HINSON, NANCE, RIDDLE, SCHAD, CIERPIOT, MOLENDORP, JONES (63), AULL, McNEIL, BROWN (50), SWINGER, WEBB, CONWAY (27), HODGES, QUINN, BLACK, KRATKY, McDONALD, MEADOWS, FALLERT, CASEY, SCHIEFFER, WELLS, FISHER, SATER, ALLEN, CAUTHORN, LICHTENEGGER, SILVEY, BROWN (116), THOMSON, LAUER, CRAWFORD, ELMER, WHITE, DAVIS, BRATTIN, WIELAND, SCHATZ, HOUGHTON, PHILLIPS, GRISAMORE, SCHOELLER AND DAY (Co-sponsors).

0876L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 9, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to designation of Christmas Day in Missouri.

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

           Section A. Chapter 9, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 9.012, to read as follows:

           9.012. December twenty-fifth of each year shall be known and designated as “Christmas Day” in Missouri, and shall be set apart as a day in honor of the Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ.

[emphasis added]

Establishment clause, anyone?

Sponsored by the usual suspects who haven’t bothered to read the Missouri Constitution:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

If they pass this they’re gonna have to designate September 19th as “Talk Like a Pirate Day” for Pastafarians.

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

Oh, they must have thought it was The Santa Clause.

Previously:

HB 1425: Merry Chrismahanakwanzukah (January 11, 2010)

HJR 62: brace yourself for “Talk Like a Pirate Day” (May 5, 2010)