If you go to the Washington Post business section this morning, you will see what I mean. Lori Montgomery has turned in, and an editor has seen fit to publish, 700 or so words of ignorant, unresearched blather and nonsense under the headline Social Security splinters Democrats in debate over reining in budget deficits.

And the article lives down to the headline.  It is a jounalistic chimera of unsourced allegations and speculation, innuendo, conflated information and mindlessly regurgitated talking points asserted as fact.

With momentum building to rein in record budget deficits, Democrats are sharply divided over whether to tackle popular but increasingly expensive safety-net programs for the elderly, particularly Social Security.

Social Security does not contribute one penny to the deficit. It is a self-funded program and it is solvent until 2037 if we do nothing, indefinitely if we make a minor tweak and raise the earnings cap.

A growing number of Democratic lawmakers say they are willing to consider controversial measures such as raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for wealthier seniors as part of a compromise with Republicans to cut spending on the programs and stabilize them for future generations.

Really? Name them. Which Democrats are saying that they will consider these fundamental changes to the program that keeps millions of senior citizens out of poverty and enjoying a decent quality of life and living independently? Name them. If you can’t name them on the record, don’t make implications. That’s not a tool of the journalist, that’s a tool of the  propagandist.

It is flat-out lying to imply that Social Security is responsible for the deficit when it is self-funded and solvent for decades and can be made so for generations to come simply by raising the cap on the income that the Social Security tax is collected on.

Right now, every dollar you and I make, we pay Social Security taxes on. But people who make over $106,800 don’t pay anything on the money they make beyond that amount. It doesn’t matter if it’s a surgeon who works long hours and is underpaid at $300,000 or a Wall Street parasite stealing millions from people like that surgeon, they don’t pay Social Security taxes on the money they earn over $106,800. If that was changed, we would have indefinite solvency. Problem solved. Decades in advance.

But senior lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) are lining up against them, arguing that tampering with Social Security would harm the elderly — as well as the political fortunes of Democrats hoping to maintain control of the White House and the Senate in 2012.

Nice! Way to go! That was a classic move there at the end, implying that Democrats only really care about their own political fortunes, not the quality of life of their elderly constituents. They just want to stay in office, and they’re sleazy enough to bribe grandma to do it. Too bad it’s been in use since at least 1983 and has grown stale and trite and only the lasiest and most inept of shills bothers with it anymore. Most decent hacks worth their salt would be ashamed to trot it out.

The dispute, long simmering behind the scenes, is poised to erupt into public view. Reid has scheduled a rally Monday on Capitol Hill to show “support for Social Security and opposition to cuts in benefits,” according to an e-mail sent to liberal activists. And House Democrats this week signaled their intention to use Social Security as a cudgel in next year’s elections by launching an ad campaign accusing 10 GOP lawmakers in swing districts of plotting to cut the program.

Long-simmering? Really? Hmmm. I have a friend or two on the hill and talk to a couple of congressional staffers for a couple of Missouri politicians who are right in the thick of every tussle, and if there was a “long-simmering” dispute that was about to blow up, I would know it. I haven’t heard anything, but just to be sure, I called one of those friends this morning and asked. He literally chuckled and said, in a Seinfeld-esque sort of way, “I don’t think so.” I laughed too and said “well, I figured if there was you would have told me,” to which he responded “definitely.”

I am most impressed, though, with the way she manages to make the fact that the Democrats are going to run ads that tell the truth about the republican positions on Social Security — sound like they’re playing dirty. Since when is it sleazy to point out to the voters that a sitting representative said of Social Security “I don’t like it“? The examples are repleat and using them isn’t in any way sleazy.

Meanwhile, Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank, plans to release a memo Friday arguing that the deficit has emerged as an uncommonly powerful political issue and that 2012 voters will reward the party that takes bold action to restrain government spending — including overhauling Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

“In our view, Republicans are winning this fight,” the memo says, according to an advance copy provided to The Washington Post. “They are winning by taking on an issue that voters believe is serious; they are winning on candor; and they are winning by being on the side of reform. Democrats – who ran on change – are quickly becoming the status quo party on the budget.”

In an interview, Third Way policy director and former Schumer aide Jim Kessler said, “There’s a conventional view right now that [entitlement spending] is an issue that shouldn’t be touched within the Democratic Party, that we should wait for Republicans to act and trap them.”

“… Our view is, that might work in a normal time. But this isn’t a normal time,” he said. “We think it’s more dangerous politically not to be in this debate than to be in it.”

Of course. I should have known from the tone that the spineless sellouts of Third Way — they are not Democrats, they are what we used to call Rockefeller Republicans — would pop up halfway through, and whadya know? Halfway through, they become the focus of the entire article.

Here’s a bit of free advice for Third Way and Ms. Montgomery…Sometimes everybody hates you not because you are doing something right, but because you are the very epitome of “wrong.” This is the case with Third Way. Even mentioning them is a conversation ender.

So is conflating Medicare and Medicaid with Social Security. So there’s two strikes. The only reason to keep reading now is to see just how deep she can manage to dig this spectacular hole she’s furiously toiling away at.

How Democrats resolve the dispute could affect not only the party’s political fortunes but also the future of talks aimed at developing a bipartisan strategy for stabilizing the national debt. With a critical vote looming later this year to raise the legal limit on government borrowing past $14.3 trillion, six senators from both parties are working to come up with a debt reduction plan that could win broad support — and Republicans consider Social Security a key part of the solution.

Did she not get the memo? The grand bargain sellout is dead. And as for the debt ceiling, well, that’s Boehner’s problem. He’s the one that needs to get the votes together. If the Democrats have any sense and political savvy, they will call the bluff of the republicans who are blustering about default if Social Security isn’t cut. The freshmen republicans are not as
“independent” as they have sold themselves to be. One half of the republicans in Congress (and at least a third of the Democrats) are a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, and the other half of the republican caucus is the government affairs division of Koch Industries. No matter who is controlling the strings of the Republican Marionettes, they won’t be letting the country default on our debts. They will be brought to heel before we default.

Social Security is the single largest federal program, dispensing about $700 billion last year to nearly 60 million people, the vast majority of them retirees. Since the program’s creation in 1935, the cost of Social Security benefits has been entirely covered by payroll taxes paid by current workers. This year, however, payroll tax revenues are projected to fall $45 billion short of covering benefits, and the problem is projected to grow as the number of retirees balloons compared with the number of working adults.

Good grief, I get tired of singing this tune. Social Security is a separate, self-funded entity that has nothing to do with the deficit. There is no Social Security crisis. Over and over again, the CBO issues reports that find 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.

Democrats have traditionally defended the program, but even some liberal lawmakers now say changes in the benefit structure are required. Last week, 32 Senate Democrats joined 32 Senate Republicans on a letter in support of a broad-based deficit reduction effort that includes changes to entitlement programs.

One of the letter’s authors, Sen. Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.), acknowledged that polls show people are overwhelmingly opposed to cutting Social Security and Medicare when asked about the programs individually. But, he said, they also want a plan to control spending that requires “everybody to put something on the table. … I am absolutely convinced if we put a comprehensive plan in front of people, they would cheer from the rooftops.” (Bloggers aside: I wonder what context of the quote was erased by that elipses…don’t you?)

Reid spokesman Jon Summers dismissed that argument.

“Senator Reid doesn’t believe that the budget should be balanced on the backs of America’s seniors, plain and simple,” he said.

Good grief…ninety-ninth verse, same as the first…Social Security is a separate entity, independent of the general fund. Medicaid and Medicare are not.

Forget about Social Security. Put it over here in a lockbox, as Al Gore said, and Just. Forget. About. It.

Where the debt and the deficit are concerned, Social Security is off the table because it did nothing to make the crisis.

Tax cuts and George Bush driving the economy into the ditch are what made the crisis. Social Security has kept it from being worse by buffering seniors from the vagaries of the market and the larger economy.

I don’t know about you, but I get a lot of peace of mind knowing that my mother is not going to end  up living with me because she’s broke.

*****

This post is part of a series I am writing as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security.

In today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

3/24/2011 2:13:00 PM

Hartzler wants military gays to get back into their closets

Warrensburg – House Armed Services Committee member Vicky Hartzler said she and other Republicans have in their sights the newborn military policy that lets gays serve openly….

“….I can tell you people on the committee, who are my side of the aisle, think it’s very ill-advised and do not support that,” Hartzler said, and are “pushing back….”

Because obsessing over the orientation of people who serve in the military will shave at least two percentage points from the national unemployment rate, right?

This morning I attended a breakfast and roundtable discussion sponsored by the Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance that discussed the Affordable Care Act one year on, and how it had benefitted Missouri small businesses since the first provisions started kicking in last September.

When I walked up to the table to sign in, I was surprised that they were so thrilled to see a B-list blogger show up with a netbook and a digital recorder to capture and report on the event. Then when I walked into the room I knew why. There was not another soul in that room that even remotely resembled a reporter, even though a press release went out last week announcing the event.

This meeting was held at the Plaza Marriott, at 45th and Main in Kansas City. The KKFI studio is at 39th and Main, the KCUR studio is at 48th and Troost and the Kansas City Star is at 17th and Grand. It isn’t like it was held in an inconvenient location. I didn’t expect television cameras, but I did expect some coverage by either the print or radio press.

I mean, if 50 teabaggers who are against healthcare reform get together and wave misspelled, grammatically incorrect signs around, the Star covers that. But 50 small business owners and administrators who have benefited from the provisions of the law that have already kicked in, gathered in a meeting room to discuss those benefits? Nothing to see there, they don’t even bother to send a reporter.

They will report on people who scream about “death panels” and “government takeover of healthcare” — both rated “lies of the year” by PolitiFact for 2009 and 2010, respectively — but they don’t report on the very real benefits of the legislation.

No wonder the law isn’t more popular.

If the traditional media had sent a reporter to the Marriott this morning, they could have reported on the benefits to small business, like the tax credit that allows Merrill Gobetz, the operations manager of Bistro Kids to insure her chefs, and how access to healthcare has made her employees healthier, less stressed and more productive. Or they could have reported on the grants available right now through the Department of Health and Human Services. These are funds that are set aside to help small businesses devise and implement workplace wellness programs — which are proven to pay for themselves and even turn a profit in the form of reduced overall costs in both healthcare and lost productivity.

A lot of small businesses jumped at the chance to offer their employees health coverage as soon as they could afford to, thanks to the tax credit. Low income individuals who aren’t offered health coverage benefit as well, because the ACA increased funding to subsidize community health centers, where low-income people can receive care either free or at a reduced rate. Kansas City has several great working examples of this in action that could serve as models for the rest of the country — the Swope Health Center clinics and the Truman Medical Centers hospital system. We have these wonderful assets that are making our community healthier, but I never see or hear local stories about how what we have been doing right for years is being rewarded and will be able to expand and help even more people, thanks to the ACA. Why is that?

They would also have had the opportunity to educate the public about the exchanges that will be set up and offering coverage options by 2014. Exchanges will essentially be a clearinghouse where you will be able to compare rates and details of coverage for all of the plans in the exchange and pick the plan that your prefered provider accepts assignment from, and select the level of coverage that is right for you, and that once you decide on a plan, the company won’t be able to deny you coverage, even if you have a pre-existing condition. Or that if you are self-employed or employed by a small business that is exempt from the mandate, your income will determine your premium, which will be charged on a sliding scale.

They also missed the opportunity to inform the listening/reading public about the “webinar” that the Small Business Majority is hosting on March 31st at 2:00 p.m. Eastern, 11:00 a.m. Pacific, that will focus on what the ACA means for small business and how both federal and state provisions help local small business owners understand how the law can benefit them and their employees, and that those interested in participating or just following along can preregister at http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/webinar and that questions can be submitted in advance to national@smallbusinessmajority.org.

But they won’t pass along any of the reasoned and factual information that people need to know because they didn’t send a reporter.

The lopsided reporting is definitely something to keep in mind the next time you hear a report about how unpopular the ACA is.

It’s also depressing as hell, because I have no freakin’ idea how to break through the media blackout when the only person who shows up to report on the positive aspects of the law is a blogger with 500 readers a day.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Freedom PAC funded by the usual suspect(s) (March 18, 2011)

Campaign Finance: Who is bankrolling the bankrollers? (March 10, 2011)

Campaign Finance: your Friday big bucks contribution dump (March 4, 2011)

Campaign Finance: opponents of the earnings tax in Kansas City get a lot of help (February 26, 2011)

The proponents of the continuation of the earnings tax on the April ballot in Kansas City have a thing or two to say about who’s funding their opposition. Like, who are they?:

Keep KC Alive on their opposition.

Good question.

Who would have the deep pockets to be able to drop $100,000.00 at a pop on a right wingnut inspired campaign to defund public services in Missouri’s largest cities?

Keep KC Alive is also running television commercials along the same theme in the Kansas City television market. We’ll post it when we find an accessible version.  

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Attorney General Chris Koster (D) – fundraising continues at a brisk clip (March 17, 2011)

Campaign Finance: because a republican Attorney General would cater to the right wingnut base (March 14, 2011)

Campaign Finance: Attorney General Chris Koster (D) has a really good day (March 12, 2011)

Attorney General Chris Koster (D): let the fundraising commence, part 2 (January 30, 2011)

Attorney General Chris Koster (D): let the fundraising commence (January 27, 2011)

So far this week, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C031159 03/21/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Western Union 12510 East Belford Ave. Mail Stop #M23 A2 Englewood CO 80112 3/21/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 03/21/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER JPMorgan Chase & Co. PAC 10 S. Dearborn Street Chicago IL 60603 3/21/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 03/21/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER MO Greenergy LLC 33 W Lake Lotawana MO 64086 3/21/2011 $9,875.00

C031159 03/21/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER KC Clean Energy LLC 1100 Main Street Suite 2930 Kansas City MO 64105 3/21/2011 $9,875.00

C031159 03/21/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Robert Blitz 61 Portland Dr Frontenac MO 63131 Blitz, Bardgett, & Deutsch, LC Attorney 3/21/2011 $12,500.00

C031159 03/21/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Fred Palmer 57 Fair Oaks Dr. Saint Louis MO 63124 Peabody Energy Senior Vice President 3/21/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 03/21/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Ameristar Casino, Kansas City Inc. PO Box 33480 Kansas City MO 64120 3/21/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 03/21/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Devereaux, Stokes, Nolan, Fernandez & Leonard, P.C. 133 S 11th St Suite 350 Saint Louis MO 63102 3/21/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 03/23/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Adjusters International 126 Business Park Drive Utica NY 13502 3/22/2011 $2,500.00

C031159 03/23/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER PDL Support.com, LLC 4551 W. 107th Suite 250 Overland Park KS 66207 3/22/2011 $5,000.00

C031159 03/23/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Hennelly & Grossfeld LLP 4640 Admiralty Way Suite 850 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 3/23/2011 $2,500.00

[emphasis added]

Update:

C031159 03/23/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Yahoo, Inc. 701 First Avenue Sunnyvale CA 94089 3/23/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 03/23/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER James P. Holloran, P.C. 2000 South 8th Street Saint Louis MO 63104 3/23/2011 $12,500.00

Update II:

C031159 03/23/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Christine Kaplan 9755 Old Warson Rd Saint Louis MO 63124 Homemaker 3/23/2011 $1,000.00

That’s a total of $59,250.00 $72,750.00 $73,750.00 if anyone is keeping track.

Ed Smith, of the MO Coalition for the Environment, contacted us at Show Me Progress to say that there’s a third side to the argument about building another nuclear plant at Callaway County. The Coalition, alongside representatives from Walmart, Sierra Club, Missourians for Safe Energy and Missouri Votes Conservation (yes THE Walmart, to speak of strange bedfellows), flat out opposes any public funding help for Ameren in building a second nuclear plant.

I wrote last week about the opposition of a coalition led by Sen. Joan Bray to Governor Nixon’s proposal that ratepayers ante up $40 million to help Ameren apply for a license for that plant. Bray’s group opposes giving Ameren the money but feels that the political reality is (or at least was) that the Republican legislature would grant the funds. Therefore, Fair Energy Rate Action Fund (FERAF), led by Bray, is working to get something in return for that sacrifice, namely that the Office of Public Counsel would be funded by profits from utilities rather than by the state and that the OPC would get more funding, which it could use to oppose building another nuclear plant.

Charles Jaco interviewed Smith and gave him the opportunity to explain that nuclear power is very expensive, not to mention dangerous (think, Japan and then New Madrid fault line), and that coal is dirty. But if Missourians focused on  improving their energy efficiency, we could save so much power over the next twenty years that not only would a new nuclear plant be unnecessary, but that the dirtiest coal plant Ameren operates could be closed down. Smith sees giving Ameren the forty Mill as the camel’s nose: a way of chipping away at the anti-CWIP law, the law that forbids making ratepayers finance new facilities before they actually come on line.

No doubt, Senator Bray understands and agrees with Smith’s arguments. Her group just didn’t want to lose the battle and have nothing to show for the effort. But now? It will be interesting to see how much or whether the danger of nuclear meltdowns in Japan changes the “fix is in” mentality in Jeff City on this issue.  If that were to happen, FERAF and the Coalition might find themselves presenting a united front against the new plant.  

When Sly James announced two years ago that he was going to run for Mayor of Kansas City, no one believed that he could do it. Even his closest friends said “well, at least you’ll have to change your name back to Sylvester.”

But he ignored the nay-sayers and he didn’t go back to Sylvester.

Instead, he rolled up his sleeves, got to work shaking hands and introducing himself, and building a campaign one voter at a time.

What he did was build a grassroots coalition of supporters, starting with tireless community activist Dr. Sugar Lee Lewis, who was out there every day, rain or shine, talking to people and planting lawn signs, from the Northland, where no minority candidate, not even our much-beloved former Mayor and current U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, ever pulled more than 30% of the vote all the way down south where Kansas City becomes Martin City.

His campaign office was a beehive of activity practically 24 hours a day for two years as the cleanest, most issues-driven campaign I have ever seen unfolded.

That would be Dr. Lewis and yours truly with hands to mouth as the first returns started to come in.

And last night, when the returns from the Northland started coming in, we knew he was going to win in a walk. We always knew he was going to carry most of the gentrifying inner city where I live and all of the east side, so when I saw 35% in the northland, I started doing the statistical analysis in my head, and turned to Dr. Lewis and said “He’s got this” even before the first vote was reported from the Fifth and Sixth districts

That’s when the party really started.

When the new Mayor came to the podium to address the crowd, he verified for everyone in the room and watching on television that faced with a tough choice and two good candidates, we picked the right one. He spent the first two minutes of his speech thanking Mike Burke for the clean, issues-driven campaign that both men waged for the privilege of leading our city, and he also let Mr. Burke know that although Sly won the election, Mike should be prepared to spend no small amount of time on the 29th floor of City Hall because he will be “up to his neck” in the work that needs to be done to get our city back on track.

It is going to be so nice come May 1st to have a Mayor and First Lady that aren’t a head-hanging embarrassment who make our city a national laughingstock.

Can someone find me a judge and a bible? Let’s just do this already.

And if Funk needs any help cleaning out his office, I’m available.

Michael has a terrific photo-essay of the watch/victory party.

Yesterday Kansas City held municipal elections for mayor, city council, and the retention of judges. Sly James was elected Mayor of Kansas City over his opponent Mike Burke in what can only be described as a classy campaign on the part of both candidates.

Last night Blue Girl and I attended the election watch event for Sly James’ campaign at the museums at 18th and Vine in Kansas City

Mayor-elect Sly James addresses the crowd shortly after the concession of his opponent.

After addressing the crowd Sly James made the rounds of television reporters for interviews.

The lineup of television satellite trucks told us we were at the correct location. As we approached the entrance Blue Girl said, “We’ve got to get us a satellite truck.” That’s an old Show Me Progress joke from the 2008 election cycle in reference to close proximity parking.

Television reporters did a few interviews before the majority of the crowd and the election results started coming in.

Steve Bough, Chair of the Jackson County Democratic Committee.

Watching for early results.

State Representative Jason Kander (D) addresses the crowd.

Former Missouri State Auditor and current Chair of the Missouri Democratic Party Susan Montee.

State Senator Kiki Curls (D) and State Representative Jason Kander (D).

Another interview with a television reporter.

On March 19th, six Democratic state representatives participated in a NOW sponsored forum where they discussed about what it’s like to serve in a majority GOP legislature during a period of radical GOPer fringism. Reps. Jill Schuupp (D-82), Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-59), Ginese Montecillo (D-66), Margo McNeil (D-78), Jeanne Kirkton (D-91) and Rory Ellinger (D-72) spoke for about an hour and a half, mostly in response to written questions solicited from the audience.

General impressions of the meeting were posted here yesterday; questions 1-3 with summaries of the discussion they engendered can be found below the fold. The remaining questions will be be covered in a subsequent posting.

Question 1.  What’s the status of Right to Work here? What’s Nixon’s position?

There seemed to be a general consensus that RTW could potentially become the law in Missouri. If the legislation doesn’t pass in the legislature – Kirkton thinks it will stall in the House – we may see it on the 2012 ballot. Kirkton observed that if it comes to a ballot initiative, supporters will have lots of money at their disposal, and because, since 1978 “people have been hard at work demonizing unions,” it may have a good chance of success.

The all-out rightwing effort to demonize unions, especially teachers unions, came up again and again. In response to the GOP argument that because tax dollars pay the salary of public employees, their union dues should not be used for partisan, Democratic, political purposes, Margo McNeil had – literally – the money quote:

Like the salary I make working ten hours a day while I was teaching didn’t count for anything, and wasn’t really  my own money to spend

Question 2. We recently voted on Prop. B in November and there’s legislation to revoke that. What’s the status, and, again, what will Nixon do?

The speakers had a variety of opinions on this topic; for instance, Ellinger said that Nixon would be “hard-put” to veto the repeal legislation given his need to balance votes from all sides of the “Missourah/Missouri” divide, while McNeil thought it would be foolish of Nixon not to veto it. Montecillo thought that, given the bipartisan support behind Prop. B, the issue could potentially hurt the GOP. All the speakers noted that they got more letters on this issue than any other and that the letters were markedly bipartisan in nature.

Schuupp noted that the repeal legislation would probably pass, and although Democrats were making efforts to amend it and make it less onerous, those efforts would probably come to nothing. While indicating that she would respect the wishes of her constituents and vote against the repeal legislation, she made an interesting point in response to the common argument that the legislature should never overturn the will of the people:

The legislature, just let me say, often overturns the vote of the people. And I will say this, there are certain things, like Prop. A, that, for example, that repeals the, that forces the city to vote every 5 years on the earnings tax, that if and when I get the opportunity to change that, I’m going to vote to repeal the vote of the people. I don’t want to say absolutely unequivocably [sic], I will never override your vote, but I’m going to use my good judgment. That’s what you sent us up there to do.

Echoing a point made by Roy Ellinger about the volume of response generated by the puppy mill issue relative to the small response generated by other issues, Schuupp added:

… we have received more information on puppy mill legislation than any other piece of legislation, and I know people love their animals and I support that love for animals, but, my gosh, we have a lot of people out there hurting too and I sure wish people would – and I am not talking to this group, but the message is larger – I sure wish people would stand up and get that involved when it involves other people too.

Question 3. This week Arne Duncan, who is President Obama’s education guy, stated that No Child Left Behind was set up to make schools and teachers fail. So I’ve got a two-part question: Part 1. What is the future of House Bill 628, the Teacher Continuing Contract Act? Are there good, valid parts of it, or how can we make it better or get rid of it?

Margo McNeil, who is a former teacher and is on the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, gets credit for the most succinct answer when she immediately declared that, “628, as it was originally written, is the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen in my entire career – I mean going back 20 years.” She added that the bill had been improved somewhat in committee, but still violated basic fairness and left teachers open to unfair punitive measures with no real recourse to outside legal appeal.

The other teacher among the Representatives, Genise Montecillo, voiced concern about how the members of the caucus would vote on the bill given the reform focus on St. Louis schools, which, she admitted, have real problems. However, she noted that within a tenure system, bad teachers can be dismissed if administrators do their jobs, and that it unfair to punish an entire profession because of lazy and incompetent administrators. “Show me one study that links poor student achievement to tenure,” she asked.

As far as evaluating teachers on a one-size-fits all system, Montecillo argued that it is difficult to effectively measure student achievement in an across the board fashion. She spoke of her experience with students with behavioral difficulties for whom “being able to sit next to a classmate for an whole class  period, that was progress for them.”

Question 3, Part 2: With education budgets being cut, why are we still wasting time on MAP testing. It consumes the time of education and educators such as teachers and counselors who would rather teach.

Ellinger spoke as a former school board members when he said that testing for comparative purposes is not a bad thing. When test scores dip, it can be used to pinpoint problems and allocate resources.

Montecillo added that while we need accountability in classes, she is concerned about how we test. We compare performance across classes; we do not test improvement over the year.

A little over sixty people from the St. Louis area gathered a week ago last Saturday at a forum organized by a local NOW chapter to hear six Democratic state representatives talk about what it’s like to serve in a majority GOP legislature in this day of radical GOPer fringism. Reps. Jill Schuupp (D-82), Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-59), Ginese Montecillo (D-66), Margo McNeil (D-78), Jeanne Kirkton (D-91) and Rory Ellinger (D-72) spoke for about an hour and a half, mostly in response to questions from the audience.

The short version of what they had to say, to paraphrase one of the speakers, is that they feel like  they’re trying to hold back the water in a leaky dam as new leaks spring up all around.  Rep. Jill Schuup (D-82) put it well:

… We go to to Jefferson city and we have all these ideas, and all these things we support, and the communities we want to represent, and the constituencies that we care about, and we get there and, being in a very small minority most of, a lot of  what I think we are doing is doing our best to keep things from moving forward as quickly as they are … it is hard to enforce the dam when there are so few of us.

The comparison that came to my mind as I listened was the famous last stand at the battle of Thermopylae where a small Spartan force valiantly defended the Pass of Thermopylae from the larger force of invading Persians. As Rep. Margo McNeil put it, the GOP is “at war with women, the working class and the middle class and with public education.” But, unlike Wisconsin, she added “if we walked out, they’d keep going … We have to stay, we have to fight the fight.”

The other major theme was the sense that Missouri’s real problems, especially endemic unemployment, are either being addressed unrealistically or being shunted aside. The GOP-dominated legislature plays backup for the Chamber of Commerce and pitches to those who can still get fired up by wedge issues. As Margo McNeil remarked, about the GOP efforts to fix the economy, “Fix-the-Six is like deep-six the working class.” Kirkton added that:

Our attention is not focused on what we said we would do which is create jobs …. We have the English only bill, we have the abortion bill, we’re overturning prop B probably next week … we also have bills that are attacking teachers.

Add the anti-Sharia bill and you get the point of Rep. Tallboy’s (D-37) remark, quoted by Kirkton, that “we’re running out of groups to pick on.” This effort to divide people and the misguided economic policies that are being proposed, as Mott-Oxford observed, “will condemn us to mediocrity in every way … bigotry will cost in terms of jobs.”

Well said, and sadly, too true.

Questions and summaries of answers will be given in subsequent posts: