Tenther drivel. Check.

They’re gonna take our guns away. Check.

Abortion. Check.

Let’s keep those greenhouse gases coming because global warming is disproved by the Faux News Channel‘s obsession with Al Gore’s weight. Check.

Death Panels! Check.

Illegal immigrants. Check.

Abortion, again. Check.

Teh gays. Check.

Hate crimes don’t exist because we love everyone, except the people who aren’t exactly the same as us. Check.

The majority can impose their religious beliefs on everyone else including at the point and beyond in which the majority’s religious beliefs are no longer in the majority since they were that way in the 1950s, sort of, and because those beliefs still trump and take precedence over anything else, and because they’re my personal beliefs. Check.

Siphon funding from public education – problem solved! Check.

Nothing has changed, therefore a 21st century narrow ideologue’s interpretation of what people thought in the 18th century should apply to the 21st century. Check.

Okay. Time out. This is too much. From HJR 26:

….Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government….

[emphasis added]

In the United States Constitution at the time of its ratification:

…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons…

[emphasis added]

Oops, that compromise having to do with a peculiar institution allowed Southern States more representatives in the House with fewer voters, among other things.

Then, there’s this gem, from HJR 26:

….Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government….

Uh, over 200 years of stare decisis doesn’t leave that decision to the Missouri General Assembly, but to the United States Supreme Court:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each….

Okay, back to the entire bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES CURTMAN (Sponsor), HINSON, PHILLIPS, LONG, SCHATZ, HOUGHTON, LEACH, CONWAY (14), RICHARDSON, LICHTENEGGER, ENTLICHER, BRATTIN, REDMON, BROWN (85), McCAHERTY, KOENIG, WALLINGFORD, HIGDON, BERRY, CIERPIOT, SOLON, DENISON, FRANZ, WIELAND, ASBURY, BAHR, WYATT, GUERNSEY, SMITH (150), DUGGER, KORMAN, DIECKHAUS, JONES (89) AND JONES (117) (Co-sponsors).

1427L.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, relating to state sovereignty.

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. 1. That the state of Missouri hereby enforces its constitutional sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America, nor prohibited by it to the states.

           2. The state of Missouri shall:

           (1) Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by hereby prohibiting the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;

           (2) Not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of the following:

           (a) Federal actions restricting the right of private citizens to bear arms;

           (b) Federal actions legalizing or funding abortions, or the destruction of any embryo containing human DNA from the zygote stage onward through all stages of development;

           (c) Any federal action requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or imposing a tax, fee, fine, or penalty on the release of carbon emissions;

           (d) Federal actions involving a public option for health care, mandating end of life counseling, rationing health care, dictating or limiting the type of treatment a doctor may provide to his or her patient, authorizing or mandating the collection of a patient’s medical record into a database, covering illegal aliens under health insurance or prohibiting enforcement of laws regarding coverage for illegal aliens, mandating the benefits health insurance must cover, requiring insurance providers to cover abortion services, restricting the ability of patients to purchase health insurance in another state, or assessing fees, fines, or penalties on employers who do not provide health insurance to
their employees;

           (e) Any federal action mandating the recognition of same sex marriage, civil unions, or any relationship other than the marriage of one man and one woman;

           (f) Any federal action increasing the punishment for a crime based on the thoughts of the perpetrator or the designation of the crime as a “hate crime”;

           (g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state; the dicta of, or stare decisis based on the dicta of, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); or any subsequent district, appellate, or Supreme Court holding relying on a “wall of separation” between church and state, that is applied beyond the constitutional prohibition of establishing a national religion, as intended by the signers of the Constitution and the first Congress. The acts of, and laws passed by the first Congress regarding religion, including the Northwest Ordinance, shall be dispositive on the issue as shall the acts of other founding fathers in their official capacity within the federal government;

           (h) Any federal action restricting the right of parents or guardians to home school, enroll their children in a private or parochial school, or placing restrictions on curriculum;

           (3) Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government.

           3. Missouri citizens shall have standing to bring a cause of action to enforce the provisions of this section. Enforcement of this section shall apply to federal actions taking effect after approval of this section by Missouri voters, federal actions enumerated herein, and any federal action, regardless of its effective date, the general assembly or Missouri supreme court shall hereafter determine, in accordance with subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section, to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America.

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

           (a) “Constitution”, the Constitution of the United States of America;

           (b) “Federal action”, any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution;

           (c) “Public option”, any health insurance plan passed after January 1, 2009, operated by the federal government or its agent that competes directly or indirectly with private health insurance providers.

           5. The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any of the provisions of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, in compliance with subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section, to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid. Any ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in violation of subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section shall be invalid and not recognized, enforced, or otherwise furthered in the state of Missouri.

           Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A of this resolution shall be as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit the state of Missouri from recognizing, enforcing, or furthering any federal law, executive order, judicial or administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the United States Constitution?”.

Using this document any individual can compare any legislation sponsored by anyone in any state legislature in the United States or in the United States Congress to determine if the sponsor is a right wingnut. If any portion of the rhetoric matches? Bingo!  

Sen. McCaskill held several town hall meetings today (Monday,) and I attended the one in Washington, MO.  That is the “hotbed of Republicanism” in Franklin County, and the Senator came prepared to win their hearts and minds.  

She listed her priorities, some of which she says she’s accomplished.  Being a deficit hawk is her MO and she’s proud of the fact that some of her “wildly liberal” colleagues have come around to her point of view.  I thought that was an unnecessary way to describe progressives who want to get our fiscal house in order but not by punishing the people who were hurt the most by gamblers on Wall Street.  McCaskill seems to have absorbed the neo-con mantra that “shared sacrifice” means the working and middle class get to do most of the “sharing.”

To her credit, the Senator is not afraid to look at the Pentagon for some of the cost reductions needed to come anywhere near a balanced budget.

She’s also proud of getting rid of secret holds on bills and nominees in the Senate as well as making the work of agency watchdogs more transparent.  She said she and her staff have saved about $1.6 over 4 years just by running her office more efficiently.  She gives that money back each year and wants other Congressmen to do the same.

Then came the fish bowl routine.

Sen. McCaskill’s routine is to ask for someone in the audience who would “never, ever” vote for her to hold the big bowl with questions from the audience.  I give her credit for this because I attended one of these things where Reps. Todd Akin and Blaine Leutkemeyer had a staff member screen the questions and drop the ones they didn’t want in the wastebasket – right in front of us.

The man whose wife was holding the fishbowl picked his own question first.  That lightened the mood somewhat.  He asked about TARP and why the money that is being repaid isn’t going to the treasury to pay down the national debt.  McCaskill told him the money IS going into the treasury, and she made sure the man knew that TARP was during Bush’s tenure, not Obama’s.  This same man then went on to blame the Education Department for turning out “dumber and dumber kids,” which brought a low murmur of dissent from the audience.  He also hates the EPA and thinks we should get rid of it.  The latest thing the righties are having a fit over is the switch to energy-saving lightbulbs.  That topic was also on the evening news tonite, and we saw President Bush signing that law in 2007.  So, if anyone crabs about having to buy new lightbulbs, remind them that the law was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Bush.

One of the questions was about why the government couldn’t do more to create jobs.  The Senator obviously was playing to her audience by repeating that all govt can do is “get out of the way by reducing regulations.”  That would have been a good time for her to mention the many benefits we all enjoy because of govt regulations.   But being proud of progressive accomplishments doesn’t seem to be part of her playbook.  She’s proud of her independent streak and knows she makes some people mad. She claims not to be one of those politicians who won’t cast a tough vote for fear of losing the next election.  She loves Missouri, has a great family and would be very happy to go home if that’s how it works out in 2012.

When an audience member called Social Security an entitlement program, that would have been a great time to explain that it is an insurance program, not a handout, for the majority of those who participate.  She blasted those of us who say scary things like (in a big, bad bear voice) “You’re going to cut my Social Security.”  She said not to let people use that “political 2 X 4” to frighten us. (No comment)

I have to give her credit for being bold and clear about her vote to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and her thoughts on women’s reproductive rights.  Two different male audience members shared their beliefs about what a “real” family should look like and all the harm done by allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.  The good Senator clearly stated that it is not the government’s business to define what a family should look like and that our country is stronger for the many varieties of relationships that constitute a family.  

As for DADT, she said she asked Gen. Petraeus, Secretary Gates and others if they had served in the military with gays, and they said yes.  She asked them if there were any problems, and they said no.  She defends the right of any American to serve his/her country – period.

On abortion, she said she is solidly pro-choice (I hate that word because it makes abortion sound like someone shopping for shoes.)  She took to task those who cut off funding for contraception and  then complain about abortion rates.  She would like to see abortion be safe, legal and rare.

Someone brought up jobs and unions again which gave the Senator a chance to strongly support the workers in Wisconsin.  She clearly had done her homework on how Gov. Walker had given away millions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations before he turned to the public sector workers and asked them to make concessions. She said, “That battle is not about solving a fiscal crisis.  It’s about getting rid of collective bargaining and busting the unions.”  Bravo.

If I were keeping score, I’d say her statements in support of progressive values like funding for education, defense of labor unions, women’s reproductive rights and the freedom to form family units without harassment from religious extremists outweighed her pandering to the neo-conservatives on fiscal and monetary issues.

Caregivers 7.  Mad Hatters 2.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C101045 02/21/2011 RETAILERS FOR ALLOCABLE SHARE Discount Smoke Shop 4400 Woodson Rd St Louis MO 63134 2/21/2011 $6,500.00

[emphasis added]

And it’s a year old political action committee:

POLITICAL ACTION Date Established: 2/16/2010

Date Terminated:

COMMITTEE: MECID:C101045

RETAILERS FOR ALLOCABLE SHARE

4400 WOODSON RD

ST LOUIS MO 63134

TELEPHONE:(314) 447-0282

TREASURER: KURT M SCHIMMER

4400 WOODSON RD

ST LOUIS MO 63134

WORK PHONE: (314) 447-0282

[emphasis added]

Same address.

What’s that all about?

Let’s take a look at 2010:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: RETAILERS FOR ALLOCABLE SHARE

Report Date: 10/14/2010

Commonwealth Brands, Inc PO Box 51587 Bowling Green, KY 42102 7/23/2010 $1,000.00

RJ Reynold PO Box 2955 Winston-Salem, NC 27102 7/12/2010 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

Ah, big tobacco.

Rallies in support of Wisconsin’s struggle to preserve the unions’ collective bargaining rights will take place this week in a number of other states. So far as I know, there are no rallies planned in Missouri, although, make no mistake, unions are also under attack here – in spite of the fact that only about 10% of the state’s workforce is unionized. That fact has not stopped GOP pols from  filing numerous anti-worker bills meant to render unions toothless and to chip away at hard-won union gains that benefit all Missouri workers. They are even, God forgive them, trying to roll back child labor laws. If Wisconsin’s Governor Walker prevails, you can bet efforts to dismantle unions in Missouri will intensify accordingly.

We all know that anti-union bias is part of the GOP’s DNA and their union busting activities go way back. Inciting violence to discredit unions has been a part of those efforts since the Hay-Market riots in 1886. Which is why it comes as no surprise that some members of the right flank of the GOP, a.k.a. the Tea Party, are planning to infiltrate pro-union rallies in order to discredit the hitherto civil protest. Here’s the former Tea Party Express chairman, Mark Williams (a charming gentleman who was forced to resign in the wake of some well-publicized racist comments):

… Here is what I am doing in Sacramento, where they are holding a 5:30 PM event this coming Tuesday: (1) I signed up as an organizer (2) with any luck they will contact me and I will have an “in” (3) in or not I will be there and am asking as many other people as can get there to come with, all of us in SEIU shirts (those who don’t have them we can possibly buy some from vendors likely to be there) (4) we are going to target the many TV cameras and reporters looking for comments from the members there (5) we will approach the cameras to make good pictures… signs under our shirts that say things like “screw the taxpayer!” and “you OWE me!” to be pulled out for the camera (timing is important because the signs will be taken away from us. […]

Our goal is to make the gathering look as greedy and goonish as we know that it is, ding their credibility with the media and exploit the lazy reporters who just want dramatic shots and outrageous quotes for headlines. Even if it becomes known that we are plants the quotes and pictures will linger as defacto truth.

So what is responsible for this anti-union venom? What could lead people to debase themselves in this fashion? There can be no doubt that the redoubled anti-union hysteria on the far right is a function of growing corporate control. It offers one more example of the way that the right wing has managed to conflate corporate welfare with Pavlovian trigger words like “economic freedom,” while stripping them of any relation to the economic security of ordinary citizen.  

Although, in the best shock-doctrine fashion, Walker talks up his state’s fiscal crisis to cover his attack on unions, he has been unable to hide his real agenda. Paul Krugman gets the whole dynamic just right in his column today in the New York Times:

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years – which it has – that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

The link between corporate America’s muscle flexing and Walker’s push to emasculate unions is underlined by the list of his main supporters that has been provided by Think Progress:

So far, Walker has refused to compromise, even though Wisconsin labor leaders are already coming to the table with large concessions. How can Walker press on, even with public opinion beginning to turn against him? Much of Walker’s critical political support can be credited to a network of right-wing fronts and astroturf groups in Wisconsin supported largely by a single foundation in Milwaukee: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a $460 million conservative honey pot dedicated to crushing the labor movement.

What this means, of course, is that Wisconsin is the front line of a major struggle for the future of this country. You better believe, as Wisconsin goes, so goes the rest of the nation – including Missouri – and the corporate interests know it. Given the stakes, what’s a few dirty tricks to a confused and corrupt right wing and their addled Tea Party foot soldiers. It isn’t after all, as if the whole dirty tricks routine were anything new for the corporate proxies who run the Grand Old Party.

Photo by WxMom from Flickr Creative Commons

One of the fascinating paradoxes of the wingoverse is that the law and order, grant no quarter crowd shifts so seamlessly into victimhood when it suits them. “Woe is me. Woe is me,” cries Henny Penny, alias Chicken Little, otherwise known as Phyllis Schlafly.

Coverage of the Ed Martin event has been thorough on the Missouri progressive blogosphere. St. Louis Activist Hub, in fact, has three postings:

• I Don’t Care What You Say, It Was A Great Night For Health Reform
• Ed Martin Forgets His Supporters, Claims People “Know How To Be Civil”
• Ed Martin, Bill Hennessey Hide in the Back of Their Own Forum: Schlafly Bolts!

FiredUp! has one: This Is What a Better Informed and Better Organized Movement Looks Like.

Women’s Voices Raised for Social Justice has a posting on its Facebook Page: Women’s Voices Members speak out at Health Care Forum

All that is in addition to my first piece, In which I explain who showed up for Ed Martin’s dance. And then there’s my first video of Schlafly: MS. Schlafly take on “Obamacare”.

Saturday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

A101422 02/19/2011 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS Civic Progress Action Committee 800 Market Street, Suite 1900 St Louis MO 63101 2/19/2011 $60,000.00

A101422 02/19/2011 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS Anheuser Busch Companies, Inc. One Busch Place St. Louis MO 63118 2/19/2011 $25,000.00

To think what else they could have done with the money if they didn’t have to spend it on this.

The vote to continue the earnings tax in St. Louis (as Proposition E) and Kansas City will be on the April ballot in those cities.

After this is over do you think anyone will buy Rex Sinquefield a beer?

The Johnson County Democratic Club met in Warrensburg last Thursday night for their regular monthly meeting. There were over fifty individuals in attendance.

After conducting business, guest speaker Brian Colby of the Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance spoke on the health care reform law and then took questions from the audience.

Brian Colby, Director of Outreach and Communications, Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance.

A short excerpt, on the polled popularity of the components of the new law, from his remarks:

Brian Colby, Director of Outreach and Communications, Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance:

[….]

…A number of the provisions in this law [health care reform], the ones that I’m talking about there, poll very, very popularly with all types of folks in our community, not just the folks that, that here in this room, not just the folks that, that generally cast a Democratic ballot or generally believe that government can play a role in people’s lives. When we do, we did some, some polling, the Missouri Foundation for Health Care did some polling here in Missouri and they really kind of, of emphasized rural areas and, and did focus groups and really drilled down. And when folks learned what was in the law, getting rid or preexisting conditions, making sure insurance companies have to be there when you need them, stop discriminating against woman and against sick people, people really, really like that. All the way across the board. It starts polling, you know, seventy-five, eighty-five percent strongly approve. Even the expansion in Medicaid that we’re gonna add. Here in Missouri we know that Medicaid has been such a difficult issue and, folks with lower incomes have really suffered because of some of the attitudes about folks that, um, getting health coverage to, to folks in lower incomes. And even that polls, uh, uh, extremely well. And so, I want to, to kind of give you a challenge today. Do not get, you know, worried about Prop C. You know, we know that Rush Limbaugh, we know that the, the majority party in the legislature are saying that seventy percent of Missourians don’t want this law, but you all know that was sixteen percent of registered voters.

When people learn about this law they like it. When they learn it’s gonna benefit them they’re gonna want to keep it. And as soon as the majority party in the state house and majority in our Congress, not our Senate, they, they realize that this is actually a popular bill, that people benefit from it, and they’re gonna have to take away those benefits, they’re gonna stop. They’re gonna stop attacking, they’re gonna stop utilizing, using this, because people will realize that they, their family members, their community, are actually gonna benefit. And we think that’s gonna be a great thing. Then we can move forward and implement it…

[….]

The Johnson County Democratic Club met at a local restaurant in Warrensburg for their regular monthly meeting.

Those benefits of the health care reform law, from a video by the Kaiser Family Foundation played for the audience by Brian Colby before he spoke:

About the Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance

The Alliance is a statewide non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to quality affordable health care for all.  Since 2008, the Alliance has been working to build the consumer and community leadership required to transform the American health system.  With the belief that this transformation will happen when consumers are fully engaged and have an organized voice, The Alliance works in partnership with national, state and local consumer organizations, policymakers, and foundations, providing leadership and support to change the health care system so it serves everyone – especially vulnerable members of society.

That about sums it up.

The Sunday Post-Dispatch ran an editorial about “The Mean Girls & Boys Club”, which described the most gratuitously nasty bills introduced in the current Missouri legislature:

[A] truly mean bill creates hardship for classes of people without sound public purpose. A truly mean bill is based on prejudice, not fact.

The column spewed mean ideas: cutting COLAs for minimum wage earners; weakening child labor laws; designating the day after Thanksgiving until Dec. 26th as the Christmas Season; requiring welfare recipients to undergo drug testing; requiring Voter ID, which would disenfranchise many elderly, poor and disabled voters; and making it harder for fired workers to prove discrimination.

In yet one more example of the press’s willingness to draw a false equivalence in order to appear unbiased, the list of a dozen legislators who’ve introduced such bills included one Democrat, Maria Chappelle-Nadal. It would be imprudent of the Post to print such a column without a Democrat on the list. Chappelle-Nadal’s supposedly mean bill would require drug testing for those elected to the legislature. But if memory serves, and I can’t find proof of it on the internet, she introduced the bill only as a sarcastic comeback at the people who want to require drug testing of welfare recipients–sort of a “sauce for the goose” move. Since the P-D editorial opened her section with that very phrase, I get the feeling they suspect the same thing about the bill.

Since Chappelle-Nadal is very concerned about finding the funds for testing all welfare recipients, she probably relished introducing a bill that would require those mean Republicans to submit to the test AND pay for it themselves. Like I said, though, the editorial staff had to have at least one Democrat so as not to appear biased, even if including her in the list was … kind of mean.

Hey, editors, it is what it is. The Republicans are the mean ones. And your false equivalence doesn’t get you off the hook with them; all it does is embarrass you.  

Last Tuesday the Missouri Senate passed an $85 million dollar corporate tax cut. The legislature, in its infinite wisdom, believes that this cut is desirable even though we read daily that the state is hemorrhaging revenue and drastic budget surgery is required.

Specifically, the lege passed a bill that would cap and phase-out the state’s franchise tax on large corporations. Franchise taxes are corporate taxes that are based on a calculation of the worth of a company’s assets rather than its income. Generally they are levied at higher rates by states with low or no corporate income tax, and are not levied or are levied at low rates in states with high corporate income taxes. However, Missouri’s corporate income tax rate is relatively low and so has been the franchise tax rate.  

The Missouri legislature has done nothing to offset the revenue lost from this corporate tax cut. And this is significant. Why? Because, according to the budget cutters in Missouri’s statehouse, we’re so broke that we’re going to have to jettison the poor and helpless who depend on the state’s safety net. Massive cuts have been proposed to transportation, education, and  health and human services – in a state where these sectors were already poorly funded.

The justification for this tax cut is, as always, the claim that low taxes create jobs – despite the fact that there is little or no evidence to support this claim. As noted above, Missouri’s corporate taxes are already very low in comparison to dozens of far more prosperous states, and this generosity to the corporate sector has done little or nothing to spur job growth. That inconvenient fact has not, of course, stopped the see-no-facts, hear-no-facts, speak-no-facts Missouri GOPers from repeatedly dragging out the discredited tax-cuts-equals-jobs mantra to justify tax breaks for the well-connected. Sadly, though, saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.

Often the job creation mantra involves invocations of “small business” which can usually be relied upon to stimulate reverence and silence critics. However, that can’t be the issue this time since in 2009, the legislature, with the support of Governor Nixon, passed a jobs bill, that, by rasing the asset cap from $1 million to $10 million, “eliminated the franchise tax for more than 16,500 Missouri small businesses, or 82 percent of all businesses that owed or paid this tax … .”

Some also claim that franchise taxes comprise “double taxation.” However, as noted above, they are usually applied in combination with or as an alternative to income taxes. Some argue that used singly or in combination with income taxes, franchise fees more fairly represent the complex issues involved in valuing corporations.

Which leaves us where we started. At a time when the legislature and the Governor are enacting massive cuts in services to the taxpayers, they are giving breaks to the wealthiest corporate segments of the state for no discernible reason other than either blind ideology or self-interest. Why are our elected state officials more worried about corporate welfare than fulfilling their obligation to keep the playing ground between powerful interests and ordinary citizens level?