• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: May 2011

Campaign Finance: Why, that's enough take in one day to buy a car – if you can find a good deal

17 Tuesday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2012, campaign finance, governor, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, Peter Kinder

Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r), still sort of candidate for governor in 2012, continues to rake in the campaign cash. Well, he does need a replacement campaign vehicle.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Contribution in Excess of $500 Received Within 48 Hours

…A current office holder or candidate for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Auditor receiving such contribution during the regular legislative session and any time when legislation from the regular legislative session awaits gubernatorial action….

C091145 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER [pdf] 5/16/2011

Bayer Healthcare

1720 Spinaker Drive

Woodbury, MN 55125

5/16/2011

$1,000.00

Douglas Yaeger

720 Olive St 15th Floor

St Louis, MO 63101

Laclede Group Inc Chairman

5/16/2011

$2,500.00

Kenneth Kranzberg

50 Picardy Ln

St Louis, MO 63124

Kranson Industries Executive

5/16/2011

$2,500.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091145 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER [pdf] 5/16/2011

William HT Bush

37 Picardy Lane

St Louis, MO 63124

Bush O’Donnell Chairman

5/16/2011

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

There can’t be that many fans of inane right wingnut Twitter posts in Missouri, can there?

Leave Social Security out of the deficit debate!

17 Tuesday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

deficit debate, social security

Social Security and Medicare have become pillars of our society in the decades since they were introduced and fully implemented, and because of those two programs, America’s senior citizens are able to retain independence, dignity and quality of life and avoid falling into poverty in their later years, regardless of the amount of wealth they amassed during their working years. That doesn’t figure into the calculation — you paid in, and you get to receive the benefits of your investment every month for the rest of your life once you reach retirement age.

Every year, the board of trustees that oversees Social Security and Medicare releases a report on the financial health of the two programs. This year’s report, released last Friday, shows that in spite of the fact that Social Security outlays were more than receipts last year, the program is solvent for decades, with the combined Social Security Trust Funds holding sufficient assets to pay full benefits for the next 25 years with no changes to the system at all.

Photobucket

There was quite a lot of squawking and shrieking as those ideologically opposed to Social Security furiously tried to spin the fact that more was spent than taken in. The program was, depending on who was doing the shrieking, either in crisis, in dire straits, broke, bankrupt, insolvent, or doomed.

Except, of course, it is none of those things.

Social Security can not, by law, run a deficit. It can only make payments it has the funds in reserve to cover. The only option Social Security has is cutting benefits if it gets into fiscal difficulty. In plain English, this means that Social Security does not — can not, by law — contribute a single dime to the deficit, and that is why it should never be a part of any deficit reduction deal.

Last year’s report projected that if no adjustments to the system are made, Social Security would face a funding gap after 2037, when benefits would need to be reduced to 78% of current payments through 2084. Still, there is no need to panic. The fix to fill in the shortfall is simple: scrap the payroll tax cap and collect it on all income, not just the first $106,800 that an individual earns in a year, as is the case now. That simple tweak would assure full funding of Social Security for at least 75 years.

There is a legitimate need to have a conversation about the debt and deficit that we as taxpayers and citizens are going to have to deal with, but Social Security should not be a part of that conversation. The so-called liberal media mocked Al Gore when he said the words “lock box” but he was right. Social Security ought to be put over there, aside from everything else, because it is a separate, self-funding entity.

Every time they try to talk about Social Security in the same conversation as deficit reduction, call them on it, because that is a deliberate tactic that is utilized dishonestly by those who want to see the program ended and privatized. Conflating the dedicated revenue stream of Social Security with general fund expenditures fosters not one, but two, insidious myths. The first is that Social Security adds to the deficit, and the second is the perception that feckless government officials are already illegally raiding the trust funds and stealing the contributions that hard-working Americans have already paid in.

Instead, we should have the conversation about Social Security after the budget fight is settled and the debt ceiling is raised, and we should have that conversation in the cold, clear light of day.

*****

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.

Gas prices: GOP blowing smoke in our eyes

17 Tuesday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

gas prices, missouri

An interesting article in yesterday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch – courtesy of McClatchey Newspapers’ Kevin G. Hall and Robert A. Rankin – had this to say about what did not cause gas prices to go up:

Usually analysts say today’s high prices stem simply from ‘supply and demand.” They mean demand for oil and gas is rising and supplies aren’t keeping up, so people bid up their price. But global and U.S. supplies are plentiful and demand is stable, so that’s not it.

So, if U.S. oil supplies are plentiful, what did cause gas prices to go up so precipitously?:

I’m convinced … that speculators are actively manipulating (prices),” said Michael Greenberger, a University of Maryland law professor who headed the CFTC’s trading division in the 1990s.

It’s harder and harder for any reasonable observer to dismiss the role of excessive speculation in this market,” said Michael Masters, a professional Wall Street investor who knows how this game works.

He’s testified before Congress repeatedly that speculators are pushing prices up well beyond what supply and demand would warrant.

They both point to a $15 weekly swing in oil prices in early May and $5 a barrel moves on oil prices in a single day – with no obvious change to supply or demand.

Which brings us to the way that our Missouri GOP congresspeople are responding to high gas prices. According to today’s Post-Dispatch,* Reps. Akin, Luetkemeyer, and Emerson all voted last week to reinforce the oil industry’s bogus argument that there is an oil supply problem (Hartzler and Long didn’t vote). The GOPers voted “yea” to:

— bring the level of drilling in the still-recovering Gulf of Mexico back to pre-BP spill levels;

— defeat proposals that would have guaranteed safety requirements proposed by the commission that investigated the BP spill be implemented before drilling in the Gulf returns to pre-spill levels;

— permit offshore drilling in ecologically fragile Outer Continental Shelf regions where drilling has previously been forbidden.

We assume, given past and current GOP rhetoric on these issues, that these votes will be justified as steps to increase domestic energy supply, which, our GOPers will contend, will, in turn, bring down gas prices. (Read, for instance,  Luetkemeyer’s statement on the topic.)    

However, this reason can’t be too compelling, even to these GOP oil stalwarts, because the trio also voted against a Democratic proposal (HR1231) which would have barred energy companies from exporting any of the oil that they obtain from Outer Continental Shelf areas under federal leases. So what happened to our GOPers’ concern about inadequate domestic oil supplies – which was presumably so strong that it pushed them to risk  environmental and safety concerns? Could they maybe be concerned about something else? Something like oil company largess, perhaps?

Remember these facts during the next election year when odds are our GOP oil company BFFs will be in our faces, taking credit for trying to bring down oil prices – while they beat on Democrats and the Obama administration for trying to control speculation, the real reason we are paying so much at the pump.

*“Votes in Congress, Week of May 9,” p. A6 (not yet posted online)

 

Campaign Finance: Kansas City "Decline to Sign Committee" – in support of the Plaza office building

16 Monday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, Kansas City, missouri, Plaza, referendum, zoning

The struggle over a Kansas City Plaza office building for a law firm (or not) will evidently continue through a referendum process.

Council overrides Funkhouser veto, but referendum threat remains

Posted: 05/05/2011

By: Chris Hernandez

KANSAS CITY, Missouri – The Friends of the Plaza group says it has enough signatures to start a referendum process….

….Highwoods Properties, the owner of the Country Club Plaza, says it will launch a “Decline to Sign” campaign.

They’re already talking with a local political consultant.

“The referendum will be something we will fight. We think the people behind it should accept the decision of two separate city councils,” said Spencer Thomson, an attorney and spokesman for Highwoods.

The veto override allows the plaza project to move forward….

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

A111104 DECLINE TO SIGN COMMITTEE 5/15/2011

Husch Blackwell

4801 Main Street

Kansas City, MO 64112

5/14/2011

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Solidarity?

That’s a lot of bucks. But, we know from experience that city referendums can get really expensive.

CAMPAIGN Date Established: 5/10/2011

Date Terminated:

COMMITTEE: MECID: A111104

DECLINE TO SIGN COMMITTEE….

[emphasis added]

The committee filed its organization paperwork with the Missouri Ethics Commission on May 10, 2011, citing [pdf] their raison d’ĂȘtre under “Ballot Measure(s) Supported Or Opposed” as “Referendum on city ordinance” which would take place on November 8, 2011.

Paul LeVota (D): a candidate for the 11th Senate District in 2012

16 Monday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

10th Senate District, 2012, missouri, Paul LeVota

Former state representative and House Minority Leader Paul LeVota (D) will be running for the 11th Senate District seat in 2012. The seat is currently held by Victor Callahan who will vacate the seat due to term limits.

A video from Paul LeVota’s campaign:

Hi, I’m Paul LeVota, candidate for Missouri state senate.

To kickoff this race we are launching paullevota dot com, the official website of this campaign.

I want to be your senator in order to stand up for common sense accountability in government. Over the past decade I have championed the cause of public education, introduced government accountability measures, and increased constituent outreach. Now, I want to serve you as your state senator.

I need you to be involved with this race. This website is only one way that I plan on keeping you informed and involved.

Running for state senate is a large undertaking. It will take a lot of time, energy and money to be successful. But I want you to know that I’m working very hard to win and I’m asking for your early support.

So, check out the website, sign up for a newsletter, and donate to our effort. But, most of all, I need your feedback. I want your participation in order to be successful.

Thank you again for checking out paullevota dot com. Check back often, we’ll have a lot of updates. I appreciate your friendship and support. Stay in touch.

The LeVota senate campaign website.

A state senate campaign is a tough and complicated enterprise. You can’t decide to run on the last day of filing in 2012 and expect to be successful in a primary or the general election.

You’ve got to lay the groundwork well in advance. Paul LeVota appears to be doing just that.  

Mike Huckabee (r) is not running for president in 2012

16 Monday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2012, Mike Huckabee

Via Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:

May 15, 2011 8:00 AM

‘All the factors say go, but my heart says no’

Mike Huckabee, by some measures, would have been the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination had he decided to run. But on his Fox News program last night, after dropping conflicting hints, the former Arkansas governor announced he will not be a candidate.

At the very end of his Saturday night show, Huckabee initially touted what a great presidential contender he’d be. He noted the polls that showed him in the lead; he touted support in the Northeast that “shattered the notion that I was only a regional candidate”; and he pointed to the support of his family members, who would be subjected to “brutal and savage personal attacks” if he ran. (Note to Huckabee: you’ve already run once, and no one bothered your family.)

But after explaining that the final decision was “a spiritual one,” Huckabee bowed out….

The Missouri connection? Wayne DuMond:

A sitting governor intervenes in the parole process, setting up the release of an individual who then goes on to commit another horrible crime. Sound familiar? Well, our political media will only cover a story like that if that governor is running for president, right? Think again….

And, three years ago:

[T]he man is scary because he makes his conservatism sound so reasonable and moderate. In some ways, we may have dodged a bullet by getting McCain instead of Huckabee.

Missouri State House Redistricting, an introduction

16 Monday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Missouri State House, Redistricting

The process of drawing the districts for the Missouri State House of Representatives is a gathering of 18 people (9 Democrats/9 Republicans) from the 9 Congressional Districts to figure out a way to satisfactorily draw 163 State House Districts.

This introduction will be more about an overall history and the possible number of districts per county.

When it comes to the history of the Missouri House districts before one-man one-vote, every county got a Representative, some got more than others. In 1962 and 1964, Jackson County had 13 districts, St. Louis County had 14 districts, St. Louis City had 15 districts, Jasper/Jefferson/Boone had 2 districts, and Buchanan/Clay/Greene Counties had 3 districts. The other 106 counties had 1 member. Predictably, these unequal districts were struck down by 1965.

Fun note: If Missouri’s House district size were based on Worth County’s population right now, the Missouri House would have 2758.6 members. Presumably they would have the same amount of office space in that scenario.

So, what did the first map look like?

Aw, the simpler times when the deviation between district populations was still relatively high, allowing for a lot of one county/two county/three county districts.

Obviously quite a few incumbents from the old system were paired. Such as Mike Bauer of Harrison County, who defeated incumbent Representatives from Mercer and Schuyler counties in the Republican Primary before defeating an incumbent Democrat from Putnam County in the General Election for the 90th District. Presumably the only time that one man has defeated three incumbent Missouri State Legislators in one election cycle.

Worth noting that they just went with giving Jackson County and St. Louis the first 77 District numbers, while having an almost-logical district number sequence in the rest of the state. Don’t worry, it changes and gets more random later.

Here’s the 1973-1983 Map

This time around, they give Northeast Missouri the top district numbers (a sequence that has remained in place for the last 40 years) and the districts start to cut through more counties to achieve the ideal population size.

The 1983-1993 map did not copy very well to the Missouri Blue Book:

Then for the 1993-2003 map, they attempt to draw the Jackson/St. Louis district lines in a statewide.

The 2003-2013 map is the map that will be referred to the most in creating the 2013-2023 map.

As you can see, the wonders of population gains in some parts of the state lead to out of sequence district numbers. Such as HD62 and HD68 being in Southwest Missouri while every other House District in the 60s is in St. Louis. It seems that with every redistricting, the Missouri House District numbers become more randomly placed like Missouri State Highway designations.

So, who’s gonna get a lot of seats in the 2011 redistricting? There’s a map for that too.

As you can see, most counties in the state don’t have enough population to make up a majority of a House District. There are quite a few which could make up a majority of the people in a district, if drawn like that. 13 Districts have enough population for one district entirely in their county, with three more counties (Webster, Barry, Laclede) having that ability with a high deviation in district populations.

109 counties didn’t have their number of ideal seats change more than 0.5. But amongst the big winners and losers?

Winners: St. Charles County (8.27 to 9.81), Clay County (5.36 to 6.04), and Christian County (1.58 to 2.11).

Losers: Jackson County (19.08 to 18.35), St. Louis City (10.14 to 8.69), and St. Louis County (29.61 to 27.19)

So in St. Louis (County and City), the number of seats will drop from just under 40 to just under 36. Jackson County could wind up with 18 seats completely in the county and one that goes somewhere else. The Suburban areas gain and the potential for more creative line drawing* exists.

(* – Creative Line Drawing is when the district looks bizarre while having no political reason to look so bizarre.)

The ideal district size of 36,742 is only a suggestion. The ideal district size for the 2003-2013 districts was 34,326. But some districts were 1,000 people below that ideal size and some where a 1,000 people above that ideal size. With the realities of precinct sizes and boundaries, the populations may differ within legally acceptable lines.

The task of Missouri House Redistricting will involve a lot more than just creating 163 districts near the ideal size of 36,742 (give or take a few percentage points where necessary). Those realities are going to come out a few more over the summer until the map is finished and prospective candidates are forced to change their cards to reflect the new number of the district they’re campaigning to Represent.

Some things that I am willing to bet happen

a) There’ll still be some out of sequence district numbers (extra points if they just put another STL-area district number in Christian County)

b) There won’t be much crossing of the Missouri River to create a district. As you can see, there never has been much taste for that, outside of Franklin County on one map, and Saline/Howard Counties in the 1990s.

c) There will be paired incumbents. But there’ll also be incumbents coincidentally in districts with termed-out incumbents.

d) Nobody will get everything they want. Not every legislator will like the map. If they do, then the EPA should step in and make sure our tap water hasn’t been spiked.

e) You’ll probably hear the phrase “Missouri Appellate Apportionment Commission” sometime in the process of drawing the districts. Maybe even to the point where six appellate court judges draw the districts if the committee can’t agree.

That’s an introduction, to show you where maps have evolved from and which areas will gain or lose members next year. With the Missouri State Legislature adjourned (thankfully), this may be one of the more interesting political things to go on for a few weeks. At least until candidates start announcing for higher offices.

Representative Bob Nance's Record: Veteran Retention in Missouri

15 Sunday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

First, I am a veteran, but that does not mean I speak for all veterans.  Similar to the general American population, each American soldier, sailor, marine and airman retains their own ideology.  So I say again, I do not speak for all veterans.  

In 2007, Representative Bob Nance (Republican, 36th Legislative District) co-sponsored HB 916.  HB 916 gives a, two-tenths of one cent tax exemption to veterans whom purchase bingo cards.  This bill, and others like it, diverts the attention of policy makers that have the ability to produce quality legislation, at no expense to tax payers, enabling veterans to call Missouri home.  

In 2008, Mr. Nance voted in favor of HJR 71, producing a constitutional amendment that provides nothing for veterans at the expense of Missouri citizens.  Another tax Missourians can ill afford to produce another level of bureaucracy veterans don’t need and don’t want.  The tax also funds services that already have existing funding.  When Mr. Nance and the Missouri Republican Party produce more red tape for veteran legislation at the expense of Missouri families, they are doing an injustice to both.  Furthermore, Mr. Nance is diverting attention from the real problems veterans in Missouri face: Joblessness and homelessness.  So, when Mr. Nance voted in favor of HJR 71, he voted against veterans and families.

Mr. Nance’s judgment concerning veterans’ affairs lacks common sense and fails to produce actionable objectives that enable veterans to settle down and spend millions of federal dollars in a struggling Missouri economy.  

Now, here is an example of substantive veteran legislation.  In 2010, Representative Rochelle Walton Gray (Democrat, 81st Legislative District) presented HCR 7.  In a courteous display of quality judgment, Mrs. Gray described how women have increasingly and heroically answered the call to duty while receiving treatment at home that is unequal to their male counterparts.  She described how the unemployment rate of female veterans is double that of the general population and how the bitter constraints of homelessness has inflicted so many of my female companions.  At no expense to the taxpayers (I say again, no expense to the taxpayers), Mrs. Gray’s HCR 7 instructs and leads coordination efforts between existing state and federal entities in order to honor and assist Missouri’s female veterans during the critical moment they return home.

As a supposed leader and senior member of the Missouri House of Representatives, Mr. Nance should be involved in expediting HCR 7.  Of course, he is not.

The last thing veterans want is to burden the people they have sworn to serve and protect.  Our oath to the people and the constitution never ends, whether we are retained in the service or not.  Mr. Nance wishes to burden his constituents with additional taxes in order to provide veterans with services that will simply never work or are not needed.

In September 2010, I personally reached out to Mr. Nance with legislative ideas to improve the retention of veterans in Missouri.  One of the ideas was to improve the certification standards for veterans when they seek to cross-level their military skill craft to civilian employment.  This would cost tax payers nothing, assist veterans during the critical moment and save employers (public and private) millions of dollars in training time and efficiency.  That does not include the millions of dollars worth of federally mandated programs that the veteran carries in his or her kit bag that will be spent in a struggling Missouri economy.  I was ignored by Mr. Nance.

No problem.  Thanks to Mr. Nance I now save a penny on a game of bingo.

Push Forward!

Truman Days 2011: Senator Claire McCaskill (D)

15 Sunday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, Claire McCaskill, Jackson County, Kansas City, missouri, Truman Days

Previously: Truman Days 2011 in Kansas City (May 13, 2011)

A bumper sticker on a car in the hotel parking lot. Yep, we were in the right place.

On Saturday morning Senator Claire McCaskill (D) was the keynote speaker at the Fifth Congressional District Democratic Women’s Club Truman Days breakfast in Kansas City.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) working the room during the breakfast before her speech.

The transcript:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): …I thought instead I’d try to talk about why we’re all here and why we should care so much. Um, ’cause it really isn’t about me. It’s really about you. And it’s about the people that you care about. And it’s about our values and our priorities. So I thought I’d try to give everyone a little pep talk this morning about why you should not be discouraged about the Democratic Party. And why this is a moment we should see as an opportunity, because it really is.

We have an election this year that is gonna really define our nation and our state in so many ways. Because, let’s be honest, uh, the voters of this country decided last November they wanted to put the brakes on the Democrats. We can’t avoid that. We can’t avoid acknowledging that. We can try to dress it up and say it’s something different, but, truth be known, the independent voters of Missouri, not the Democrats and not the Republicans, the independent voters of Missouri  decided to put the brakes on the Democrats. And they did that all over the country. So, what we have to do is check back in, first, for all the things we’ve gotten done, and secondly, all the reasons that we have to fight next year harder than we fought in two thousand eight when we elected Barack Obama President of the United States in this country. [applause]…

…And let’s be honest, we have a tendency to complain. Now, do I have a witness? [laughter] I think we have a tendency as activists in the Democratic Party to always complain about what’s going wrong. Well, you know, Obama should have, you know, he should have gone with single payer. Or, you know, I, I really don’t like the fact that we’re having to cut many of the programs I care about. And, you know, and Jay Nixon, he just isn’t doing the right thing. Or, you know, I wish Claire McCaskill wouldn’t have voted for Rockefeller.

Well, on and on and on. And I think we have a tendency not to focus on how much we’ve gotten done that we all care about. And so I’m gonna briefly go through a very short list, a very short list of the things that have been accomplished since the Democrats took over the United States Senate with the election of Claire McCaskill in Missouri in two thousand six. First, we did sweeping health care reform that will, in spite of what, all the misinformation that’s out there, it will provide quality, choices, affordability, and access. We have expanded the Pell Grant program, making college real for millions of kids that wouldn’t have ever got in to college. We now have more Pell Grant assistance, even with the cut we had to do in summer programs, than we’ve ever had before in the United States of America. We passed a child nutrition law that will make a difference in terms of [inaudible] children, especially needy children, have the kind of nutrition they need to avoid those big health care costs down the line. We took, regulated tobacco for the first time in the United States of America, we have finally regulated tobacco. We fought and won the tobacco lobby in Washington. [applause, cheers] We have done over five hundred billion dollars of targeted tax cuts for small businesses and for working families. Did, did you hear that? [voice: “Yes.”] [applause] We’ve done over five hundred billion of targeted tax cuts for small businesses and the middle class. We did the stimulus which stopped the bleeding, cut taxes, provided unemployment in, insurance benefits, and gave the State of Missouri a lifeline through the rockiest road of economic downturns that we’ve seen in this country since the Great Depression. [applause] We did Wall Street reform and regulation to prevent future messes like the one that we have been cleaning up since the day George Bush left office. [voice: “Yeah.”][applause] We expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program. [applause].  Did I mention five hundred billion dollars in targeted tax cuts [applause] for small businesses and middle class families? [cheers] We created a small business lending fund that, uh, is right now helping capital get to small businesses because we all know the vast majority of the jobs that are created in this country are not created by the big companies, they’re created by small companies. We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act [cheers, applause] .  We put into place a first time home buyer tax credit. We did housing loan modification legislation that has proved, prevented foreclosures all across the country. We did the fraud enforcement and recovery act, and this is a big one. We fought the credit card companies and did real credit card company reform in terms of how [applause] consumers are treated in terms of their credit cards. We did Defense Department weapons acquisition overhaul to prevent waste and cost overruns at the Pentagon. We did emer, emergency  border security supplemental funding. We did Iran sanctions to try to keep a country in check that could be very dangerous for our national security. We did hate crimes prevention, passed that [applause] over a lot of opposition on the other side of the aisle. We did a new G.I. Bill that allows those veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan today to have the exact same benefits that my father had when he came home from World War Two. [applause, cheers]  We did the veterans caregiver assistance bill which allows family members that are caring for veterans that have been injured to get the support they need so that their lives are not even more disrupted by the tragedy that they’re dealing with. And, we have established record funding for veteran’s programs in the United States of America. [applause]  And now we’ve had fourteen consecutive months of solid job growth in the private sector. [applause] Not bad, not bad.

If I would have done the complete list I would have been late to my next event in Columbia at noon. [laughter] I couldn’t list everything. But the next time you feel frustrated, the next time you feel like you want to complain that the Democrats aren’t saying it right or doing it right reflect on that list. And understand that many of those came over incredible opposition from the Republican Party. And so, it has been productive and there is a lot for us to be proud of and we should not lose sight of that for a minute as we prepare for next year. [applause]

And we have a fight. We have a fight along with a huge deficit and debt problem. So how are we gonna get through the next decade and maintain our priorities and values? This will be a challenge. And I want to make sure no one leaves this room without me saying very clearly how serious the problem is. It is impossible to find a country in the world that has had economic growth when their debt equaled their GDP. When the debt in a country had equaled their gross domestic production countries don’t grow. Now, we are gonna be there in less than ten years. We will be there. So, if we don’t want to get there we all have to be honest and realistic about what has to happen. Does i
t have to be the way [Republican Congressman] Paul Ryan wants it to be? No, of course not. it does not have to be the way Paul Ryan. Do we have to end Medicare? No, we do not and we will not end Medicare, [applause, cheers] not on my watch. But we have a fight to in the future. And we have to have targeted investments in infrastructure, in innovation, and of course, in education. But we also have to realize that the footprint of the federal government is gonna have to shrink. And we do have to have a tax code that is less tilted towards the very, very, very, very wealthy in this country. [applause]

Our fight is to hold on to the values of our nation, our civil rights, equality, tolerance, and religious freedom. Now, what are they fighting for? Now this is where it gets a little weird. [laughter] Since they’ve taken over the majority in the House and taken over so many Governor’s jobs in this country and taken big majorities in so many state legislatures their priorities have been interesting. And I’m being kind. They have taken a meat axe to education. I mean, the folks in Jeff City didn’t want to spend the money that we had sent them from the federal government to make sure they didn’t have to lay off teachers. In some kind of symbolic political gesture. Really? Somebody asked me one day, well, what message are the legislators in Jefferson City sending when, when they are trying to, you know, they say they’re trying to send a message to the federal government that they shouldn’t be spending money this way? I said, I’ll tell you the message they’re sending, they’re sending a message to Missourians that they don’t give a hoot about public education in this state. [applause] That’s the message they’re sending.

We can’t have an America that we know and love by inflicting all of the pain on fifteen percent of the budget. While I am absolutely committed to making sure the footprint of the federal government shrinks, this is a situation where the pain has to be felt by all. We can’t just do it with Pell Grants, Head Start, funding for Agriculture, highways, foreign aid, that’s only a little bitty sliver of our budget you guys. It’s a little bitty sliver. We aren’t, we could cut all that money out and we’d still have a huge debt structure problem. So we’ve got to look at, at means testing. We’ve got to quit buying Warren Buffet’s prescription drugs. We can’t afford to buy warren Buffet’s prescription drugs. If you are very wealthy you should buy your own prescription drugs, [applause] not have the government buy them for you.

And then have to look at all of the spending. And believe me, there is no one in Washington that cares more about our military than I do. There is no one in Washington who has a better handle and understands better how important our military readiness is. But let me just walk you down the path of waste at the Pentagon. In two thousand one the Pentagon’s base budget, I’m not talking about the war s now, forget about the wars, that’s a whole ‘nother budget, just the Pentagon, their base budget was three hundred billion dollars. This year their base budget is five hundred and fifty three billion dollars. Now can you imagine what your kids would ask for if you never told ’em no? Can you imagine how far they might go in asking for things if you never told them no? How ’bout multiple IT systems to track the same equipment? Both IT systems costing billions of dollars tracking the same equipment in two different branches of the military and the two systems can’t even talk to each other. Now, that is absolutely should infuriate tax payers. It should infuriate the members of the House. And you know what they did in their budget this week? They didn’t touch the Pentagon’s budget. In fact, they added money to the Pentagon’s budget. There is real money savings we can find in the Pentagon without absolutely having any impact on our military readiness, on the best military in the world, or protecting our men and women in harm’s way. [Applause] And that’s what we have to focus on.

You know, if we are gonna be serious about our debt and deficit we have to be also serious about the tax code and the goodies that are in it. and as [Jackson County Executive] Mike [Sanders] mentioned, one of the things that ought to be the easiest to get done, you know, they are busy wanting to cut Pell Grants, they are busy wanting to cut [inaudible], you know, the money that helps feed children that are poor, they’re busy wanting to cut Head Start, but they don’t want to talk about taking away money, taxpayer money, from the wealthiest corporations on the planet. Now really, how serious are they about the debt and deficit?

Um, big oil. Big oil, I’m, and you know, this bill that I introduced, it’s just the five biggest oil companies. It’s not the small independent oil companies. We want them to keep competing, right? It’s the five biggest. You know what they made the last three months, these five companies? Their profit? North of thirty-five billion dollars in three months. And what we’re talking about over a year, they’re gonna make north of a hundred twenty-five billion this year. We’re talking about taking away two billion dollars of their profit that’s your money. And the Republicans say, oh, no, can’t do that because, you know, or gas prices will go up. I got news for you. They’ve got those subsidies, our gas prices are going up. [voice: “Yeah.”] [applause] Hasn’t had any difference.  I don’t think [applause], I don’t think anyone’s noticed that the, the gas companies, the big oil companies are worried about our gas prices. And to use that as an excuse to keep handing them our federal money. Are you kidding me? How in the world, if we are not willing to go after the most egregious examples of corporate welfare? What nerve do they have, going after the Pell Grants and Head Start?  That’s the difference between a Republican and a Democrat [cheers, applause]  right there. That’s the difference. [cheers]

You know, in the tax code also, um, let’s, let’s, let’s talk about this. In, in the nineties, uh, there was a little bit more taxes that multimillionaires paid and we balanced the budget. And we had twenty-two million jobs created. And then we cut taxes for the multimillionaires and guess what? We didn’t have much job creation. So, I got to tell you, the other thing that’s important as part of this equation, putting everything on the table, part of this equation is we really do need to say to folks, you know, on your second million you can pay three percent more in taxes. You really can. [applause] And I really don’t think on your second home that you need a mortgage interest deduction. Really? [laughter] Um, I don’t think that is something that is really motivating folks who buy a second home for recreation purposes.

And then finally, I just want to say, um, the other thing that you’ve noticed since they’ve taken over so many places is they are working very hard to weaken the voices of working people in this country. [voice: “Yes.”] [applause] With all of the excesses that caused our financial meltdown their solution is to go after the nurses and the teachers and the firefighters and the policemen? Really? With all of the excesses, all of the greed, and all of the, the incredible motivation to make hundreds of millions of dollars in all of these ridiculous secure, securitized mortgages and all of the subprime meltdown, after that mess they think what we need to do is to go after the two people who, maybe, their combined income is eighty grand a year? That’s the way we’re gonna make America strong again? To go after the pensions of the people who have worked in our classrooms for twenty-five years? I will tell you, one thing the Democratic Party is gonna do next year, we’re gonna make very clear to America that the teachers of this country are not the problem. [applause, cheers]. They are not the problem.  [applause, cheers] [inaudible] Yay, for the teachers. [applause][inaudible]

You know this, this fight is a noble one. And it’s one that should motivate all of us. It is about the small business, it’s about the
family with two parents working full time and hoping they can figure out a way to get their kids to college.  It’s about single moms and their struggles to be god mothers and good providers at the same time and figuring out what time they can get their kids ready for school and still get to the bus so they can get to their job. It’s about families, no matter what they look like. This fight is, uh, not about policy. It’s about people. And it’s about the fundamental principle that all of us believes so deeply in, and that is we have to have a country where there still is opportunity for everyone. And we cannot ever turn our back on that fundamental value. It’s our party that will always wage this fight. It is our party that will state this cause with passion and emotion. And is our party that tonight, today, tomorrow, next week has to put aside our small disappointments with one another and focus on a message of unity and strength. Because, you know what, hat mother who’s trying to get her child ready for school to get them to the school bus so that she can get down and catch the bus to her job? She’s got nobody to count on but us. So let’s do it for her.

Thank you all very much. [applause]

Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders (D) introduced Senator McCaskill. Missouri Democratic Party Sate Chair Susan Montee also addressed the crowd.

Missouri State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) attended the brakfast and worked the crowd.

Fighting Corpublicans in the countryside

14 Saturday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

CAFOs, local control, missouri, property owner lawsuits against CAFOs

Rural opposition to CAFOs faced two onslaughts in the latest legislative session. Led by the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, opponents of the corporate takeover of the countryside in Missouri stopped one attack and went down to defeat on the other.

For the second year in a row, Rep. Tom Loehner, R-Koeltztown, introduced the “Right to Raise Animals”, both as a statute and as a constitutional amendment. HCS and HJR 86 read this way:

Upon voter approval, this constitutional amendment, in order to protect Missouri’s agricultural economy, affirms the right of Missouri citizens to raise domestic animals in a humane manner that promotes the health and survival of the animals without the state imposing an undue economic burden on their owners. No law criminalizing or regulating crops or the welfare of animals will be valid unless based upon generally accepted scientific principles and enacted by the General Assembly.

By specifying that Missourians be allowed to “raise domestic animals in a humane manner”, the bill took a jab at the proponents of Prop C, which regulates puppy mills. It voices the resentment of many farmers, who felt that Prop C implied that rural people don’t treat their animals humanely.

I don’t think that attitude was implied by Prop C, but since rural people took it that way, CAFO opponents had to expend energy fighting a bad bill. The bill had two vague phrases (“undue economic burden” and “generally accepted scientific principles”) that would have prompted endless litigation. Had the bill become a constitutional amendment, the inane wording would have been cemented into our state constitution. A more important problem than the phrasing, though, is that the bill would have made it much more difficult to assert local control over CAFOs, because any attempted regulation would have been construed as “undue economic burden” for the CAFO owners.

'Broiler' chickens raised for slaughter

Opponents made thousands of phone calls, sent thousands of e-mails and met with legislators to explain their objections to this dangerous attempt to limit local democracy. In the last week of the session, Loehner’s bills failed to gain traction.

But the minions of the Farm Bureau won a big one in passing a bill that limits the rights of rural property owners to sue CAFOs. Shame on Gov. Nixon for signing this travesty. Here’s what I wrote about the bill in February:

A public hearing without the public. That’s the best kind, if you have a particularly (pardon the pun) stinky bill. And HB 209, which would limit the rights of Missouri family farmers, landowners and communities to get redress in the courts against CAFOs, reeks. It smells of Republicans doing exactly what government is not supposed to do–protect the wealthy and powerful, in this case Big Ag, against legitimate lawsuits from the rest of the citizenry.

The public hearing that wasn’t took place on blizzard day, last Tuesday. While hundreds of concerned citizens who’d have showed up for the hearing were hunkered down in their homes during the onslaught of ice and as much as 18 inches of snow, the House Agri-business Committee met and passed HB 209 out of committee. This bill would prevent property owners who sue CAFOs from collecting anything more than “fair market value” for any devaluation of their property. First off, once a CAFO invades a neighborhood, nobody knows anymore what “fair market value” is, since property values tend to shit a brick once one is even threatened, much less actually installed. Property owners in the historic village of Arrow Rock, who tried to prevent a CAFO from being built, were advised to get an assessment of their property immediately. It was probably already devalued, though, simply because a CAFO was seeking a license for that area.

But beyond the issue of what property is worth are other issues. What’s it worth if a farmer whose family has been on the land for six generations has to sell because the air is so bad that his family can’t go outside and enjoy picnics anymore? Or because one or more family members now have severe asthma? What’s that worth? Nothing, according to this bill. People will not be allowed to sue over health impairment or quality of life issues.

So, for CAFO opponents, is the session a draw? I can’t say that. They lost on the lawsuit bill and held their ground on attempts to limit local control. They organize and fight valiantly, but Corpublicans have all the money and well over half the legislators. Nevertheless, the people at Missouri Rural Crisis Center and their troops will go into battle again next year to protect family farmers. I respect them.

Photo courtesy of Farm Sanctuary

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Campaign Finance: promising us high regressive sales taxes
  • Close
  • Campaign Finance: way, way in
  • Things that go “boom” in the night
  • Campaign Finance: keep it coming

Recent Comments

Uh, in case you were… on Some right wingnuts with money…
Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…

Archives

  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,051,656 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...