• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: August 2011

State Auditor Tom Schweich (r): having friends with really fat check books…

16 Tuesday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, missouri, State Auditor, Tom Schweich

…is priceless. Last week 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

C111150 FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH [pdf] 8/12/2011

Sam Fox

7701 Forsyth Boulevard Ste 600

St Louis, MO 63105

Harbour Group Executive

8/11/2011

$50,000.00

[emphasis added]

Ah, one of the usual republican sugar daddy suspects. What’s this? It’s a brand spanking new committee:

Date Established: 8/12/2011

COMMITTEE: MECID:C111150

FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH

3220 WEST EDGEWOOD STE E

JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65109

TELEPHONE:636-519-9800

TREASURER: JOSEPH S. PASSANISE

2974 EAST BATTLEFIELD

SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

WORK PHONE: 417-882-9300

HOME PHONE:

CANDIDATE: THOMAS A. SCHWEICH

7144 WYDOWN

ST. LOUIS, MO 63105

TELEPHONE:636-519-9800

OFFICE SOUGHT: STATE AUDITOR

Date of Election:8/5/2014

Political Party:REPUBLICAN

[emphasis added]

What happened to the old committee?:

DEBT SERVICE Date Established: 7/9/2009

Date Terminated:

COMMITTEE: MECID:C091153

SCHWEICH FOR AUDITOR

PO BOX 16084

ST LOUIS MO 63105

TELEPHONE:(417) 882-9300

TREASURER: JOSEPH S PASSANISE

2974 E BATTLEFIELD

SPRINGFIELD MO 65804

WORK PHONE: (417) 882-9300

HOME PHONE:

[emphasis added]

Ah, debt service. How much debt? [pdf]:

REPORT SUMMARY

SCHWEICH FOR AUDITOR

7/7/2011

1. Total Receipts For This Election Previously Reported $2,402,996.57

27. Money On Hand at the close of this reporting period $14,981.52

34. Total Indebtedness at the Close of This Reporting Period $15,472.20

[emphasis added]

You’d think it’d be easy to get one of those friends to write a check for $500.00.  

Charter schools vs. Public Schools in St. Louis

16 Tuesday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Yesterday’s St. Louis Post Dispatch had a front page article on the performance of the city’s charter schools relative to its public schools. And guess what? There’s not much difference. Some charter schools do better, lots do worse:

The numbers continue to show that charter schools – promoted as an alternative to the struggling St. Louis Public Schools – have yet to consistently offer superior results for the nearly 10,000 children who attend them. At the lowest-performing charter schools, pupils are six times less likely to pass exams than their peers at the city’s traditional public schools.

and

The degree to which their schools are performing varies widely. In fact, a 61 percentage-point difference exists between the best- and the worst-performing charter schools in reading, and 52 percentage points in math.

Who would have suspected that loosening the rules and regulations that govern public education and lessening accountability – not to mention, in some cases, adding the profit incentive to the mix – might not necessarily be the way to improve the education we are offering our children in St. Louis. In fact, if one considers those charters that are succeeding, it seems that what they are offering could easily be replicated in the traditional public school – as long as resources are adequate to do so. According to a spokesperson for St. Louis Charter School, where students’ performance on standardized tests have regularly improved,  “the steady gains show that reading specialists, tutoring and individualized instruction are paying off.”

Let’s see – reading specialists, tutoring and individualized instruction – actually addressing the specific needs of individual students. Who’d have guessed that this is what it takes? Perhaps you might be tempted to ask why public schools can’t provide the same services? Do you think it might have something to do with resources – like the millions of dollars redirected from public to charter schools?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry: An Opposition Campaign Primer

16 Tuesday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Ah! Fresh meat!

That’s what’s on the mind of political pundits this week as they come down off the high of the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames. With nothing to report until–well–something unpredictable happens, or until the Iowa caucuses in January, the media and blogosphere will gush with pedantics about this outsider to the GOP fratricide-fest that has been the 2012 presidential nominating process thus far.

Unless something extraordinary happens, Texas Governor Rick Perry will be the GOP and Tea Party presidential nominee in 2012. He’s the darling of the extreme right and can be stomached by party moderates who know Mitt Romney has no chance of winning the top spot on the ticket without flip-flopping on nearly all of his social positions. So, no big deal, we’re looking at Rick Perry.

Here is some friendly advice that an opposing campaign should follow–Republican, Democrat or Independent:

1) Texas Governor Rick Perry shall not be referred to as the “Wal-Mart Candidate,” or “[Insert Fast-Food Chain Here] Candidate.”

Though bulk international realtors like Wal-Mart and unhealthy fast-food companies have crumbled the professional occupational base of this country, they remain wildly popular with folks struggling to get by on an unemployment check or–surprise, surprise–a minimum-wage job from one of the aforementioned. By undermining American business, Wal-Mart and McDonald’s can afford to churn out cheap (both quantitative and qualitative) goods; in tough economic times, folks are almost forced to shop here in order to feed and clothe their families. Many feel they don’t have an option.

Scoffing at Wal-Mart or fast food will almost certainly alienate the working families needed to win this election. The Texas Governor’s opposition will thus have popularly branded him without any effort on his part.

2) Don’t call him “Ricky Perry,” either.

Haven’t you seen Talledega Nights? This moniker will only draw comparisons with Will Ferrell’s character, Ricky Bobby. Yet another popular brand not to bestow on the Tea Party Candidate for President.

3) Refer to him as Texas Governor Rick Perry as much as possible.

Voters remember the last Governor from Texas in the White House–they sent a very resounding message that he messed things up for the country pretty bad with their vote in 2008.

(Disclaimer: Don’t push this point too hard or mention George W. Bush too often. You’ll look petty and juvenile.)

4) Refer to him as the Tea Party Candidate for President whenever possible.

The Tea Party has a very high unfavorability rating among Independents and voters who have not yet made up their mind in this election. And make no mistake: Texas Gov. Rick Perry got into this race because he knows he will have Tea Party support the whole way.

5) Do NOT mock Texas Governor Rick Perry’s faith.

Democrats and Independents who mock the faith of Texas Gov. Perry will absolutely be labeled as anti-Christian, anti-moral, typical liberals. This couldn’t be more untimely, as voters are finally seeing that being a good Christian in America means the Republican Party isn’t the only political congregation available. Progressive Christians put their faith into action every day through actual works of good both within government and without–highlight that heavily instead.

6) Do NOT mention his work for Al Gore…

…Unless you’re using it to highlight his flip-flopping on the issues or you live in a district where Gore is rabidly unpopular. Campaign on his work for the former Democratic Vice President and you’re just asking for voters to infer that he is bipartisan–big mistake. This guy is no Reagan.

7) Talk a lot about secession.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry advocated that policy for Texas for a time–do you really think a man who preached absolute disunion deserves the highest office in the land? Frame the choice as between a candidate of Lincoln and government “of the people, by the people, for the people” versus a candidate of discord and yesterday.

8) Show you have gall and grit when it comes to standing up for your faith; don’t allow it to be used as Texas Governor Perry did.

If he is bringing showmanship-faith into the public debate, good Christians of any political persuasion are entitled to remind the Texas Governor: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.” (Matthew 6:5) Don’t cede an inch of ground to the Tea Party Candidate for President on this issue. His brand of Christianity is a sensationalist, boastful brand; highlight the alternative, which is true, humble, oats-and-barley faith.

9) Texas Governor Rick Perry is responsible for the death of 234 Americans.

For what it’s worth. Emphasize that one can be tough on crime without condoning more murder, which is what Texas’ death penalty allows–the most extreme of all fifty states.

10) If all else fails, give him the “$500 Hair Cut” treatment.

Hey, it worked against John Edwards. Sorry men, if you’ve got good hair, expect to have it used against you by the majority of the country bereft of such a privileged feature.

This is by no means an all-inclusive instruction manual on how to defeat Texas Governor Rick Perry, but it should be a starting point. There is no need to campaign negative or maliciously, but an informative opposition drive is necessary to lay bare the Tea Party Candidate.

In politics, like in football, there are no pre-ordained candidates. On any given election day, the campaign that has worked the hardest–and the smartest–with enough heart and drive will win the day. Let that be your mantra for a better American campaign in 2012.

(Cross-posted from The Journeying Progressive)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not everyone is drinking your brand of corporatist tea

16 Tuesday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Daily Star Journal.letter to the editor, missouri, Teabaggers, town hall, Vicky Hartzler, Warrensburg

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a series of town halls on Wednesday in the 4th Congressional District. We attended the afternoon town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg. There were dissenting views and push back at both town halls, but the one in Warrensburg was by far the more raucous.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg (August 10, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 1 (August 11, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 2 (August 12, 2011)

Vicky Hartzler is trying trying to scare you (August 12, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 3 (August 13, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 4 (August 14, 2011)

There was a letter to the editor in today’s edition of the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal addressing Representative Hartzler’s (r) expressed view on government regulation:

Get government off backs of business? Is that good?

I attended Congresswoman’s [sic] Vicky Hartzler’s town hall meeting in Warrensburg and am concerned about her comments about getting the government off businesses’ backs.

She spoke about the Environmental Protection Agency and how it was out of control, that we needed to get rid of all these regulations for businesses to grow. It may be that Congress should start doing its job on oversight of government agencies but I am concerned with this notion that we have too much regulation, that we need to slash whole agencies….

….The EPA was founded to improve human health. It is fun to watch the eagles but the important thing about them is that, if they are healthy, then we humans have a healthy environment to live in as well.

[emphasis in original]

Interestingly enough, the paper had a lead editorial in the same edition on the same subject:

Business regulations beneficial to public

Without environmental regulations, many businesses would not self-regulate – either due to greed or ignorance….

….Businesses know the risks, but coal continues to provide a major source for business profits and for Missouri energy. This is not to suggest coal, for now, remains a needed source of energy, only that regulations have resulted in cleaner-burning coal at places such as Iatan II in Platte County. Such regulations should be strengthened, not weakened, for the sake of public health.

If you only get 50.4% of the vote in a non-presidential year election with relatively low turnout you probably shouldn’t act like you won by a three to one margin.

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – November 2, 2010 General Election

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

As announced by the Board of State Canvassers

on Tuesday, November 30, 2010

U.S. Representative – District 4 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 415 of 415

Candidate Party Votes % of Votes

Skelton, Ike DEM 101,532 45.1%

Hartzler, Vicky REP 113,489 50.4%

Braun, Jason Michael LIB 6,123 2.7%

Cowan, Greg CST 3,912 1.7%

Total Votes   225,056

[emphasis added]

Of course, if you’re a right wingnut that’s a feature, not a bug.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 4

14 Sunday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

4th Congressional District, missouri, town hall, Vicky Hartzler, Warrensburg

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg (August 10, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 1 (August 11, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 2 (August 12, 2011)

Vicky Hartzler is trying trying to scare you (August 12, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 3 (August 13, 2011)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a series of town halls on Wednesday in the 4th Congressional District. We attended the afternoon town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg. There were dissenting views and push back at both town halls, but the one in Warrensburg was by far the more raucous.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) at the Community Center in Warrensburg, Missouri on August 10, 2011.

“…There’s two types of jobs bill. One is the kind that Congress passed last year that borrowed more money from China, almost a trillion dollars worth and put it in a stimulus package where the government tried to force job creation. Supposedly we were gonna have less than eight percent unemployment. That didn’t work. So there’s the government type of job program versus private sector. Private sector is less direct and it takes longer and it involves what we’re doing, it is getting Washington out of the way…”

Memory can be so convenient and short. As if dubya’s administration and their policies weren’t causing the economy to hemorrhage jobs? And the stimulus, while not extensive enough, played no part whatsoever in reversing that? Seriously?:

From the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D).

The final portion of the transcript:

…Question: When, when you have these town meetings do you get back to your leadership and tell them that the people are very dissatisfied, they’re fed up, and like that gentleman said, they don’t care if they’re Republicans, Democrats, they want things done. Would you please make that known to your leadership in the House that the people are tired, they’re tired and they’re fed up. They want something done [crosstalk] from their elected officials.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Sure. I will.

Question: [inaudible] answer, just take it to ’em and tell ’em.

Representative Hartzler: Thank you so much. Yes, ma’am…

…Question: I just have a [inaudible] question about China. And I’m not very smart, I just want to know. Uh, I read recently that there is a corporation that was buying spent shell casings from ammunition from the Department of Defense. And now they’re no longer going to be able to do that unless the casings are shredded. But, our, our government will sell the casings, shredded, to China. Therefore people in this corporation buying the spent casings are going to be out of a job. I would like to know if that’s true.

Representative Hartzler: I don’t know, but we will be happy to look into that. That sounds like the wrong thing to me. And that’s terrible if that’s the case. So, this is [….] she works for you and we have several of my staff here. But, she, if you’re a veteran she’s somebody you need to get to know because she, uh, is, has the phone numbers and, uh, used to work for Senator [Kit] Bond [r] as the veterans rep and she knows who to call if you’re not getting your benefits or have a problem or whatever. And she is a wonderful, wonderful blessing to all of us here in the fourth, so she would be a good person, so she’s making note of that. [….] could you make sure and get her name and address and phone number so we can find out and follow up, okay? Thank you. Yes, you’ve been very patient. Thanks for waiting.

Question: Uh, to me the problem seems, uh, the politicians once they get up there in office they try to make a mountain out of a molehill to justify their, their high pay. The problem’s really simple. You want to raise taxes, I’m all for it. Raise the import tax on people like China, India, whatever. The taxes that, the stuff that they import raise it a hundred, two hundred, three hundred percent, I don’t care. But, uh, it’s been estimated that we have twenty million illegals in this country. And for everyone you have it’s costing the American taxpayer anywhere from forty and fifty thousand dollars per year to support them. Instead of calling them undocumented Obama supporters why don’t you call ’em illegal, like they are. It’s an illegal invasion of the country, which illegal invasion is an act of war. Why do they go out of their way to, uh, feed them, to help ’em? When we should be, you know, cracking down.

Representative Hartzler: Yeah, I agree. I couldn’t [crosstalk]…

Question: And, and get all of them out of the country. That would open up how many millions of jobs to someone who would pay taxes?  Right now they’re not paying any. [inaudible] They’re getting a big refund for the earned income tax credit.

Representative Hartzler: Okay.

Question:And it’s not right.

Representative Hartzler: I, uh, just so you know, I cosponsored several pieces of legislation to try to, uh, rein in the problem with the illegal immigration. I think we’re all for legal immigration. You and I, all our relatives, we probably [inaudible][crosstalk]…

Question: That’s fine.

Representative Hartzler: …but we need to fix the illegal immigration. And it’s a huge problem, uh, so we’re [crosstalk] gonna do everything we can.

Question: [inaudible] that he, uh, passed that one bill that gave amnesty to forty million.

Representative Hartzler: No, we can’t do that.

Voice: No. No.

Representative Hartzler: We can’t do that.

Staffer: We’ve got time for about three more questions.

Representative Hartzler: Three more,[crosstalk]okay, here [inaudible].

Voice: Oh, come on.

Voice: Where do you have to be.

Question: [….] here in [crosstalk] Warrensburg and I work for Sprint.

Voice: What’s the rush?

Question: And the reason I’m here today is to express my concerns regarding the proposed takeover, the AT&T [inaudible] takeover with T-mobile. Um, Verizon has approximately ninety, ninety-four thousand subscribers and if this transaction goes through they would control eighty percent of the revenues that are out there for mobile industry. Um, when you compare that to other industries that are out there, uh, the oil business, the top two are only eighteen percent. Uh, airlines are only thirty-six percent. Banking’s twenty-seven percent. Auto is thirty-seven percent. But if this passed it would be eighty percent of our industry which would put approximately two hundred employees out of this district out of work. Um, so when we talk about jobs and we talk about the concerns that we have with the economy, um, I’m just asking you to take into consideration [inaudible] support declining this with the Department of Justice, the FCC, these are the organizations that will make that decision, but you urging them to move away from that takeover would help us.

Representative Hartzler: Okay. We, we’d be happy to look and see wha
t we can do. It is not something that we vote on per se, it’s an agency making that decision. But, um, I’ll be happy to look and see what we can do. Excellent point. Thank you for coming [crosstalk].

Voice: Congresswoman Hartzler, would you repeat what she said? [crosstalk] We couldn’t hear.

Representative Hartzler: Oh, okay, sure. She, uh, works for Sprint and is concerned about, right now, there’s a merger, uh, being talked about between AT&T and ver, [voice: “T-mobile”] T-mobile. And that she’s concerned that what it would do to jobs and stuff. It would disproportionately, uh, put out competition for Verizon and some others. So, anyway, she’s asking me to do, see if there’s something I can do, you know, it’s not something I vote on per se. It’s an age, anyway, see if there’s something we can do to put pressure to encourage them not to do that. So, anyway, yes [….]

Question: So, my concern’s jobs. I haven’t heard, all you talk about’s cutting money out of, of things. You ran on, on promoting jobs. So I haven’t seen anything out of you for jobs. And what do you plan on jobs besides putting numbers up there that, that don’t mean anything to us. You haven’t, there’s no jobs bill. [crosstalk] There’s nothing going at all.

Representative Hartzler: Well, [crosstalk]we passed. I’m sorry, are you? Uh, thank you. He says, you know, he wants to see a, jobs bill. There’s two types of jobs bill. One is the kind that Congress passed last year that borrowed more money from China, almost a trillion dollars worth and put it in a stimulus package where the government tried to force job creation. Supposedly we were gonna have less than eight percent unemployment. That didn’t work. So there’s the government type of job program versus private sector. Private sector is less direct and it takes longer and it involves what we’re doing, it is getting Washington out of the way. And so what we have done is we’re passing bills to push back on regulations, we have passed bills to try and lower the cost of energy, because you talk to small business owners if they’re having to pay more for their energy bill it’s gonna, it can’t hire somebody, pay more for their electric bill. Uh, and we’re, we’re pushing back on, introduced bills for, to lower the tax code. We’re pushing these trade agreements. If we can get these trade agreements passed that would be about two hundred fifty thousand jobs right there. So, it’s an indirect approach because we want the private sector to create jobs not the government. And so it is a jobs program but it’s not a bill per se where it says, uh, we’re gonna spend xyz as United States government to try and create jobs ’cause that just doesn’t work.

Question:Let me, let me, let me, uh, talk through the steps. The stimulus money that came into this state was sucked up by this state and this county. It wasn’t that many jobs stimulated from it. [inaudible] it cost them as much [inaudible][crosstalk]…

Representative Hartzler: [crosstalk] Right, it’s what I’m saying, it didn’t work and now we’re further in debt, almost a trillion dollars in debt further.

Question: [crosstalk][inaudible] No, wait, the, the state themselves and the Congress used some of that money up to pay their bills. That money never made it to those people. I’m, I’m in construction we’re running about [inaudible] percent unemployed. And there’s nothing helping us. There’s nothing going, there’s nothing coming at us. By you stopping, by you going at OSHA, by you going at all these [inaudible], by you going at all of the, uh, uh, regulations on power houses, you talk about clean air, there’s two or three power houses, maybe four, in this state that are clean. That’s [….], the new one, created thousands of jobs. The, the, all the regulations say that they’re gonna clean [inaudible] coal up by twenty-fifteen. They’re getting ready to extend it to twenty-eighteen. That’s not gonna help us get any jobs. I don’t understand, I don’t understand, the coal’s there, it’s gonna have to be either cleaned up or we’re gonna have to go to something else. It needs to be cleaned up. And it can be if Congress and the, and the government would quit fighting and quit taking money or whatever they’re doing from these power, from these electrical companies [….] stuff. Let them come up and pay for these, clean these power houses up.

Representative Hartzler: Well, just anytime you put more regulations they pass that on and it increases your electric bill. [crosstalk] So, you gotta keep that in mind.

Question: Sure, but the regulations are there. [crosstalk] Regulations are there, just don’t extend them.

Representative Hartzler: So, okay, very good. Uh, I try to keep calling on people who didn’t interrupt during my presentation. [laughter] All right, you right there.

Question: Um, I just have one thing to ask you. Let me read this list, then I’m going to ask you the question. And thanks for coming. Um, Democratic presidents have given us the GI Bill of Rights [inaudible], GI Bill of Rights, Social Security, Medicare, um, Pell Grants, voters’ rights, um, Rural Electric Association, you know people didn’t have electricity in the communities on the farm…

Representative Hartzler: Sure.

Question: …um, Pell Grants, right now, National Defense Loan, I went to school because of that, UCM, they’d done all these things, to Democrats. What has the Republican Party done for the average people?

Voice: Yeah. [applause]

Representative Hartzler: [inaudible] economy to help create jobs. [laughter] They’ve kept our nation safe. [voice: “Grew the economy?”][laughter] [inaudible crosstalk] This isn’t a, a forum on Republicans versus Democrats. You can go to a Democratic Party meeting or a Republican Party meeting if you want to talk about that. This is, we’re talking about Americans here, we’re all Americans. I represent everyone, Democrats and Republicans [laughter].  [inaudible crosstalk] I’m honored to do that. And we’re trying to do what’s best for America. I want to try to get more jobs, try to get a healthy economy so we don’t go, uh, bankrupt as a country, uh, because I care about our children and our grandchildren. We don’t want to see what happened in Greece happen here. And so it’s time for us to make some difficult choices, some difficult decisions, but we can do it because we’re Americans. And stay strong. Last question, right here.

Question: Thank you. You called on me twice now.

Representative Hartzler: Yeah, I know. [laugh]

Question: [another individual] Okay, I would like to know why you, you signed the Grover Norquist [voice: “Yes!”] pledge. And weren’t you elected to represent and compromise for all your constituents? And why would you let the U.S. default on its debt when it’s in the Constitution that the debt will be paid?

Representative Hartzler: Yeah, well, you read your questions good from the professor over here.

Question: No, I brought this with me.

Representative Hartzler: Oh, okay, okay. But, anyway, brief, uh, briefly, um, I signed the no taxes pledge because I believe we don’t need any more taxes. [inaudible crosstalk] .

Question: Your beholding to somebody [inaudible], you’re beholding to your constituents.

Representative Hartzler: [inaudible crosstalk] No, I believe in it. I believe and remember, I mean, I didn’t even think about the pledge, it’s in here, it’s not out here then. And I haven’t even talked to him, I mean, you know, that’s ridiculous. [voice: “Why’d you sign it?] That’s ridiculous to assert that. I believe we don’t need any more taxes. That’s why I signed the pledge and that’s why I will not vote for that. ‘Cause it’s what I believe in here and it’s what I heard people, people say. So, um, what was your next question that, in regards to that?

Question: It’s why would you let the U.S. defau
lt on its debt when [crosstalk] it’s in the Constitution?

Representative Hartzler: Oh, okay. Where, [crosstalk] yeah, yeah, we’re not gonna default on our debt.

Question: You almost let us default.[crosstalk]

Representative Hartzler: [inaudible audience crosstalk] No, no, no, there’s a myth to that.

Voice: “That’s right.”

Representative Hartzler: [inaudible] August, the average amount of money that was expected to come in was, uh, was one point seven two billion dollars. The amount of money expected to go out was three point three [inaudible] billion dollars. So there’s a deficit there. But, I’ve talked to a lot of the economic experts before the vote and they shared with me [inaudible][inaudible crosstalk] seventy-four billion dollars coming in. That would be enough to pay, obviously, the, the interest on the debt should be the first payment made, make sure we don’t default, should be enough money for Social Security, enough money for Medicare, enough money for our troops and defense. Then after that you got running out of the money, you’re gonna have to make some tough decisions. But there’s, the, for politicians to go in front of the TV cameras and say, oh, if you don’t do this then our, your not gonna get   Social Security checks, to scare senior citizens I think is abominable. And it happened and it’s wrong [inaudible][applause].

I thought you said she was the last one.

Question: I got one, one comment.

Representative Hartzler: Is it nice?  [laughter]

Question: [inaudible]

Representative Hartzler: Okay. Let’s end on a positive note. [….]

Question: Okay, it’s about the Iraqi currency. Iraqi Dinar. The United States government owns several trillion Iraqi Dinars. They’re waiting to reevaluate. The richest government in the world is gonna be Iraq. Do you agree with that? You now, do you know anything about the Iraqi Dinar?

Representative Hartzler: I do not. Do you guys know anything about the Iraqi Dinari [sic]. I don’t know. [crosstalk] I obviously need to know more, so you can tell me.

Question: [crosstalk] Okay, they’re gonna, they’re gonna , they’re gonna reevaluate their currency any day now. And the U.S. government owns trillions of, of dollars in, in Iraqi Dinar.

Representative Hartzler: Okay.

Question: And, anyway, Obama has, has delayed the, the reevaluation of this currency.

Representative Hartzler: Okay.

Question: Anyway, there, once it reevaluates a lot of the national debt can be eliminated. [inaudible]

Representative Hartzler: Well, I’ll, that’s something new and why I go out is to, you know, learn new things and, uh, we’ll certainly be able to look into that.

But, anyway, thank you for coming. Thank you for your good questions, those of you that listened attentively, thanks. [applause]

“…Oh, okay, okay. But, anyway, brief, uh, briefly, um, I signed the no taxes pledge because I believe we don’t need any more taxes. [inaudible crosstalk]

You’re beholding to somebody [inaudible], you’re beholding to your constituents.

[inaudible crosstalk] No, I believe in it. I believe and remember, I mean, I didn’t even think about the pledge, it’s in here, it’s not out here then. And I haven’t even talked to him, I mean, you know, that’s ridiculous. [voice: “Why’d you sign it?] That’s ridiculous to assert that. I believe we don’t need any more taxes. That’s why I signed the pledge and that’s why I will not vote for that. ‘Cause it’s what I believe in here and it’s what I heard people, people say…”

Distributed in a handout by Representative Hartzler’s staff to those attending the town hall:

One of the charts on the handout distributed by Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) staff

at the Warrensburg town hall on August 10, 2011.

As always, it pays to look at the details:

One of the charts on the handout distributed by Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) staff

at the Warrensburg town hall on August 10, 2011. Detail, emphasis added.

Gee, revenue went up, spending went down, there was a budget surplus, and a chance to pay down the debt. All because in 1993 Congress voted to raise the top marginal tax rate.

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

By Pat Garofalo on Aug 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm

…Of course, far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush….

And people continue to spout and listen to republican economic policy with a straight face?

Bank of America and the little people

14 Sunday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bank of America, customers close accounts, missouri

Bank of America can command the cops, so it does whatever it damn well pleases when the little people pester their corporate overlord.

Only rallies of tens of thousands expressing righteous indignation can make a dent in the Bank’s arrogance. We have to build a movement.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 3

14 Sunday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

4th Congressional District, missouri, town hall, Vicky Hartzler, Warrensburg

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg (August 10, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 1 (August 11, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 2 (August 12, 2011)

Vicky Hartzler is trying trying to scare you (August 13, 2011)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a series of town halls on Wednesday in the 4th Congressional District. We attended the afternoon town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg. There were dissenting views and push back at both town halls, but the one in Warrensburg was by far the more raucous.

“…you know, the, President Obama walked out of some of the talks. Anyway, yeah…”

Really? There was one meeting where after two hours of republican intransigence President Obama got kind of pissed off and left that particular meeting (the “don’t call my bluff” incident) but that’s a lot different than walking out on negotiations themselves, you know, cutting off talks. As Blue Girl is fond of saying, “When the president leaves the room the meeting is over…”

Only the republicans cut off the dialogue, once when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (r) did so in the talks with Vice President Biden and twice when Speaker Boehner (r) did so. You don’t think Speaker Boehner or Representative Cantor would dispute that, do you?

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) at the Community Center in Warrensburg, Missouri on August 10, 2011.

The third part of the transcript:

…Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Okay, wrap up your questions.

Question: My question is, my question is this, how are you going to fix the gridlock and how are we going to get things done? Because it doesn’t matter what we think, nothing’s getting done.

Representative Hartzler: Well, thank you. I appreciate, uh, your comment. First of all, I got my Master’s degree in teaching from here at UCM and I taught school for eleven years and, uh, certainly appreciate what you’re saying, big supporter of education. Uh, a, the, what you saw we ended up with a, a compromise. I mean, it came, it, it’s not a, I mean, it’s ugly. I always tell students, they come down, I was a state rep for a while, come down to [voice: “We know.”] the capitol and say, there’s two things you should never watch being made, that’s sausage and law. Because it’s ugly. But in the end it usually turns out. And, uh, you know, we didn’t have TV cameras back in Thomas Jefferson’s day, everything, there’s always been in this country and that what makes our country great, partly, is that different ideas that are able to come forward. And so you see that now on TV and out, you know, in on Twitter and Facebook. We have such, such more, uh, focus on it than perhaps in the past. I think we’ve always had different ideas, but in the end things do, do get done. Um, the thing is with this debt ceiling is that several of us feel so passionate about it, it’s like, well, do you come together and compromise on something that is less than what the credit rating agencies have said you need. And then you’re worried that credit rating is gonna fall and potentially what happened is gonna happen, the stock market would fall and you guys [crosstalk]…

Voice: It was because of the inability of the Congress [crosstalk] to get along.

Question: That’s because no one would listen…

…Representative Hartzler: …So that’s part of the[crosstalk] reason we, well, we, ’cause [crosstalk]…

Voice: That’s what[crosstalk] [inaudible]…

Question: It should not have come to twenty-four [crosstalk]before we went into default. That was ridiculous.

Voice: That was money that was already spent.

Representative Hartzler: Well, you could talk to the Senate and the White House because they have to listen, too, and [crosstalk]…

Question: They do. They all do. [crosstalk] Oh, absolutely, they all do…

Representative Hartzler: …you know, the, President Obama walked out of some of the talks. Anyway, yeah.

Question: …But what I’m saying is that you can say that and you can keep throwing the blame around, the House of [crosstalk] Representatives and the Senate,

Representative Hartzler: Well, but, I hear you want me to, to cave into what they want so we don’t argue.

Question: No, I did not say that…[crosstalk]

Voice: Compromise.

Voice: Oh, come on.

Question: No, I did not say that.  I said [crosstalk][inaudible]…

Voice: Compromise is a two way street, people.

Question: You’re not even listening to me. You’re not listening to me.

Representative Hartzler: Okay, say it one more time and then [crosstalk] there’s a lot of hands up.

Question: [inaudible] That’s, great, what I did not say I want you to cave to anything else, I said I want our government to listen to us and look out for our best interests and listen to one another and not be so completely dogmatically stubborn that they won’t listen [crosstalk]…

Voice: That’s not caving.

Voice: They didn’t listen to the last election very well.

Representative Hartzler: Let me listen.

Question: …That’s not caving, that’s listening. It never should have come up to twenty-four hours before default.

Representative Hartzler: Well, I agree with you there. I sure wish we could have come up with some [inaudible]. Yes…

Question: I’m an educator also, thirty-four years. I, I, have fond memories of it, great memories of it. One thing that, you know, I’m embarrassed by our behavior first of all. [voices: “Yes.”]  I mean, this was worse than unruly school children [applause][inaudible].  I don’t care what your belief is or your, your ideology there’s gotta be some respect tossed back and forth or you don’t get any respect. [applause] The question I have is this. And I have, I have lots of questions, what about us, foreign aid for China. How ridiculous. I Can’t believe [inaudible crosstalk] it…[crosstalk]

Voice: That is dumb. [crosstalk] Dumb.

Representative Hartzler: It’s not, it’s [inaudible]…

Question: …I heard it. I read it. I can’t believe it. I can’t believe we have five hundred and thirty-five people in Congress that don’t even question that. I’m not talkin’ at you, I’m just talkin’ about all five hundred and thirty-five as well as our President and his entire cabinet. Why, why is it? That, that’s ridiculous.

Representative Hartzler: Yeah.

Question: The next thing is, I saw in the paper where the debt limit had been raised so many times over the last ten years when the Democrats were in control, they both worked, when Republicans were in control, they both worked. They’re not, it’s vice versa, opposite, opposite. [voice: “That’s right.”] So, this thing has not been created in the last two and a half three years. It’s been created in the last forty years. And, I’m, quite frankly, I’m, I’m not a Republican, I don’t want to be affiliated with them. I don’t want to be affiliated with the Democrats. I’m an independent thinker. And I don’t think that a party should ever control how you vote. Or, [voice: That’s right.”] [ap
plause] how any of the Democrats vote. [inaudible crosstalk] So, it’s obvious that Congress is, is at a gridlock. Do I trust that they’re gonna solve this? [voices: “No.”] No. But, we’re gonna have a financial calamity that’s gonna be far worse than the Great Depression ever was if we don’t get our act together and listen to each other and finally reach some kind of a resolution to this problem. We spend too much money. Now, I, I have a nice retirement, my wife’s a retired school teacher. I wouldn’t be opposed to somebody raising my taxes if, if there was a balanced budget that, that I knew that that money would be spent wisely and not squandered off because it’s not their money. And I, and I think that, I’m not talkin’ about you, but I’m talkin’ about all these long term career politicians, they spend it like it’s not their money. It is our money. It’s not theirs. And I want it spent wisely. So, if there’s one thing you can carry back to Washington that’s it. I’m sick and tired of Republicans, I’m sick and tired of the Democrats. When are we ever gonna get together and reach a compromise? And if it, if it means raising taxes a little, but cutting a lot of spending, I’m for it. I want this country back to where it was.

Voice: I second everything. [voices: “Yeah.”][applause]

Representative Hartzler: Well said. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I think, uh, and you may see taxes on the table, for those of you who want pay more taxes or see more taxes.

Question: I don’t want to. [crosstalk] I would be willing [crosstalk] if I know it’s spent wisely.

Representative Hartzler: Well, I, know what you’re saying. [crosstalk] I hear you. Well see, that’s my concern because [crosstalk]…

Voice: Never will be. [crosstalk] Never will be.

Representative Hartzler: …people have said that if you, uh, you know, raise the taxes then you have more money for more programs [voice: “Yep.”] So I wouldn’t feel comfortable, eh, in, we’ll see, down the road what proposal comes out. I hear you, those of you who want higher taxes, maybe I’ll vote for it, but I would not support it unless I knew specifically that those extra money they, people be sacrificing to pay, to send it, going to pay off the debt.

Question: Exactly.[crosstalk] Exactly.

Representative Hartzler: Go to the debt [crosstalk], don’t go to some new program to keep the same [inaudible].

Question: Exactly.

Representative Hartzler: We’ll see what [crosstalk][inaudible]. Thank you, [inaudible] you. Sir.

Voice: Tell your leadership that, don’t tell us that.

Question: [….] And, uh, I have a couple of questions. One, the most recent discussion on debt decrease, one point two trillion dollars decreased over the next ten years. That’s not a decrease, it’s just a [inaudible], a not a, as high an increase. But, only in Washington can a, a less than increase be called a decrease. So, one, what are you specifically willing to cut? And the second thing is, uh, you make over a hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, now, I don’t know how many other people in the room make that much money. [voice: “Nobody.”] But, people on Social Security, fixed incomes, disability and military retirees have not a pay raise in two years. My wife’s a school teacher and hasn’t had a pay raise in three years. [inaudible] Congress has voted the last fifty years a pay increase every year. [voices: “Yes, that hurts.” (inaudible)]  So, in addition to the balanced budget when is Congress going to join the American people taking pay cut [voices: “Yes.” “No health care.” “Cut their retirement”] or , [voice: “No health care.”] and, or, [voice: “Pension.”] well, pension’s beside, I have a great pension, I’m retired military, I have a fantastic pension. [voice: “Glad you do, I don’t.”] Well, you had a choice. Uh, so, when is Congress gonna do that in addition to the balanced budget. You know, the favorable rating of Congress is less than ten percent right now. Why don’t you ask us for a pay raise? I mean, seriously. You work for us. [applause] [inaudible crosstalk] I can’t go tell government I want a pay raise [crosstalk], so.

Representative Hartzler: Right [crosstalk], well I haven’t voted for any pay raise, you know, I just got there, you know, myself. This was the system that was there, but, I think you made some excellent, excellent, uh, excellent points. So, I’m certainly listening and, yes, there.

Question: Wait a minute. So, how, you didn’t answer my question? [audience laughter] What are you, what are you will, [crosstalk] specifically willing to cut?

Representative Hartzler: [inaudible] Oh, willing to cut, willing to cut. Thank you. I got it. I got it. Oh, I got sidetracked. [crosstalk] Yeah, yeah.

Question: That’s okay. I understand.

Representative Hartzler: Well, we have voted for several cuts since different appropriations bills have gone through. I don’t remember all of them. But I think everything should be on the table, even, uh, [voice: “Farm subsidies?”] yeah, there’s, there’s cut, yeah, you’re gonna see that and the farm bill’s gonna be renegotiated next year. You’re probably gonna see direct payments, a lot of it, go, if not. There’s gonna be a lot of cuts there, uh, and there need to be. [crosstalk]

Voice: Big oil subsidies?

Representative Hartzler: There’s, uh, yeah, probably, so, I mean,  everything needs to be on the table. But, uh, [crosstalk]…

Voice: They have thirty-five.

Representative Hartzler: …the big cost drivers are entitlement programs and nobody wants to talk about and is afraid they won’t get reelected and they’ll be demagogued and there’ll be ads run against them and things. So, we need to reform and look at those programs, too. We can’t totally cut the budget. If you go back to the pie chart you could total, if you remember the, the red was on this side, you could totally mothball Washington, the ride pie piece, and national defense and you still wouldn’t balance the budget. All the money is going to all the entitlement programs now and it’s expected to expand. There’s ten thousand baby boomers joining Medicare and, uh, uh, Social Security every day now. And, uh, anyway, it’s a, it’s a big problem. We need to reform them so they don’t go bankrupt, [crosstalk] [inaudible] anyway.

Voice: How would the balanced budget solve that problem?

Representative Hartzler: It would force some reforms to take place so those [crosstalk][inaudible]?

Voice: What, what kind of reforms? [crosstalk] We’re talking about how much money Representative Hartzler?

Representative Hartzler: [crosstalk][inaudible] I didn’t call on you.

Question: My question is, how is the government going to take out [inaudible] Roosevelt, all the money goes in, they cannot borrow [crosstalk]…

Representative Hartzler: I’ll repeat his question, I know you can’t hear. Go ahead. I can [inaudible].

Question: They cannot borrow for anything. But yet the President puts it on the table.

Representative Hartzler: No. [crosstalk] Right.

Question: No, it should be, it’s already in there. In fact if you go back, nineteen eighty-three, Ronald Reagan signed into law [inaudible] put all that into a trust fund. That means that they cannot borrow or anything else. What goes in, it can only come out.

Representative Hartzler: Well, here’s some facts, uh, let me, uh, share, [….] was asking about Social Security and how can they spend that money when it’s supposed to be set aside and things and that, that’s comes up at every town hall and I’ve been learning more about that myself. And so let me share with you, whether it is right or wrong, the money right now does come in through general revenue and then it’s credited to Social Security. Every year until last year there was a surplus. There was, uh, less money going out than was coming in. And so what has happened, whether you like it or not, don’t, don’t kill the messenger here, but anyway
, the federal government has used that money but given an IOU to the Social Security saying, okay we owe you this amount. Starting last year when there was more money going out than coming in for Social Security the Social Security trust fund started calling in their IOUs so the federal government’s paying them that. And that’s what they’re saying, there should be enough IOUs to pay, uh, to reimburse, to go out, ’til about twenty thirty-seven is what the Social Security trustees have said. And that, at that point there’s no more IOUs and it will all be supplemented by general revenue. So that’s why some people are saying we need to start talking about what can be done for future generations, not for you guys now on Social Security ’cause you’re good, you’re, you’re go, gonna have all your benefits and it’s gonna be there. But, we’re talking for the younger generation by the time, you know, twenty thirty years from now they’ll be not enough money coming in to take care of that. So should there be some tweaks to the system for the [inaudible] different age group or whatever. And it’s fairly easy to fix, uh, it’s a defined contribution system and defined benefit system so you could tweak it, uh, to make it, uh, you know, [inaudible] fairly easily. Whether pol, politicians or Washington has the courage to do that or not it’s debatable because in our budget in the House we passed a measure saying, Social Security trust fund you need to do a study and see if this is gonna stay solvent or not and if not, you need to come up with a plan for the future how to keep it solvent. That’s all the, the Republican House budget said. Uh, but even with that there was some ads put out to certain districts, there was, you know, just telling lies, saying, your representative is trying to kill Social Security. So, it’s hard to do. It’s the right thing to do, to be proactive, but it’s hard to do politically ’cause people demagogue it and, unfortunately.

Question: Then why [inaudible] we don’t get a pay raise?

Representative Hartzler: Oh, that [inaudible]. Pay raise. Pay raise, ok.

Question: But the other thing is, and I wish I had [inaudible] some [inaudible] they automatically get three percent [inaudible] plus they take a grand stand of voting it down.

Representative Hartzler: Yeah.

Question: But, yet, if you check your Constitution it says that Congress cannot raise their pay as long as they’re in office. It has to go to the next election.

Representative Hartzler: Huh.

Question: That’s in the [crosstalk] Constitution. [inaudible]

Representative Hartzler: I’ll check, I’ll check into that [crosstalk]. That hasn’t come up. I know we’ve cut our budget by sev, by five percent first week I was there. Then we cut our budget again [inaudible] so that the Congressional budget offices we have cut it, ourselves as well, kind of setting an example there. Did you ask a question right before that? What was that? Real quickly I was gonna say, oh, oh, the cost of living and then I need to go on to some other people. But, the cost of living adjustment is something I’ve looked into, too, because I hear a lot. A lot of people call in, say, how’s come we’re not getting a cost of living adjustment? And, uh, that is very concerning. That is figured, I’ve learned, by comparing the third quarter performance from one year to the other on the, uh, standard cost of living. So, you’ve got, uh, July, August, [inaudible] right now we’re in the middle of that time frame. And they’ll compare the cost of things during these three months with how much it cost last year. I am hopeful, I’m hopeful , we’ll find out in January, but that there might be a cost of living increase next year, ’cause I don’t know about you, when I go to Wal-Mart to shop it is costing more. I mean, everything costs more so you can’t tell me that [inaudible] costs aren’t going up and that we don’t need an increase there. But that is not [inaudible crosstalk] determined by Congress it’s set up in law and there’s a separate, uh, board that reviews that every year. But, I, uh, I’m certainly hopeful that you’ll get a, a raise next time. Yes…

“…One thing that, you know, I’m embarrassed by our behavior first of all. [voices: “Yes.”]  I mean, this was worse than unruly school children [applause][inaudible].  I don’t care what your belief is or your, your ideology there’s gotta be some respect tossed back and forth or you don’t get any respect…”

Ah, a concern troll.

@MBersin Michael Bersin

Rep. Hartzler (r) townhall in Wbg: supporter criticizes those who spoke out as rude. Forgot about teabaggers and health care town halls? 2 hours ago

…Voice: It, it’s been twenty minutes. You’ve been twenty minutes, Representative Hartzler.



Representative Hartzler:
Well, I keep being interrupted. [laugh] You know, uh [crosstalk]…

Voice: Unruly school child…

Well, that’s a familiar phrase from someone speaking out of turn, isn’t it?

The final portion of the transcript of the town hall will follow in a subsequent post.

Vicky Hartzler is trying trying to scare you

13 Saturday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

China, Deficit, foreign debt, gross national debt, missouri, public debt, trade deficits, Vicky Hartzler

When I read Michael Bersin’s transcript of Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s (R-4) recent town hall meeting in Warrensburg, I was struck by a specific aspect of her effort to gin up hysteria about the national debt. If all else fails, trot out a scary picture of the foreign bête noire of the day, currently China, and  you’ll fire up the xenophobes every time:

China owns twenty-nine percent of our foreign debt. That is a real concern to me. I said I’m on the Armed Services Committee and I’ve got to sit in a lot of hearings and I can tell you, I don’t know what China’s doing, but it’s concerning. They are building fourteen nuclear submarines right now. We’re building one. They have been devoting over twelve percent of their budget to national defense. Uh, they just introduced their version of a stealth aircraft fighter plane recently. And they just unveiled a twelve hundred mile aircraft carrier busting bomb. So, it’s a little concerning that they hold this much of our debt. In fact, with the interest that we pay China we would be able to buy three, or they could buy, three joint strike fighters and still have fifty million dollars left over. So, um, there’s a lot of reasons I think that we need to get out of debt. But certainly this obligation, um, to China is a concerning one.

 

First of all, if you’ll forgive me for a little nitpicking, Rep. Hartzler may be technically correct that China owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 29% of our foreign public debt – but she conveniently leaves out the fact that all foreign investors together, including China, own only 31% of our gross national debt*. China is no longer even the largest investor in that group. China currently owns only 8% of our gross national debt. See how it works –  and how Hartzler is conflating different categories of debt to create a misleading impresion?

Further, as economist Dean Baker notes, “foreign borrowing is determined by the trade deficit, end of story,” and the value of the debt held by foreign entities is tied to the value of the dollar in relation to foreign currencies. This means that it is in China’s interest to prop up the dollar, which it does by buying U.S. Treasury bills, bonds, and notes. Their willingness to hold our marker, so to speak, is not directly affected by our deficit, nor is it likely to be affected by the domestic spending cuts Hartzler and her GOP cohorts advocate.

To be fair, some economists are concerned that if the U.S. is unable to get its debt under control long-term – and the idea of long-term vs. short term is key here – it will affect the confidence of investors like China. Most concede, however that in the case of China, our interests are so conjoined that there is little likelihood that they will do anything to endanger our prosperity. China depends on the U.S. to buy Chinese goods. Without a prosperous, ever-consuming U.S., Chinese growth stalls. As Adam Davidson of NPR’s Planet Money put it in an interview earlier this year:

… the only way China can hurt us is to completely destroy their own economy. China needs the U.S. and the U.S. dollar to stay healthy, to keep growing. What we have is mutually assured economic destruction.

Michael Bersin,  quotes former Secretary of State Richard Armitage who was interviewed during a visit to Warrensburg a couple of years ago, and went so far as to assert that China’s internal stability depends on the United States economic viability.

… If the t-bills, if China withdrew, [i.e. sold off their U.S. debt] they would not be able to keep that economy humming along. They would have instant social upheaval in the countryside and probably in the cities.

 

So why is Hartzler trying to stoke fears about China, directly implying that China is somehow leveraging American debt to build up its military at the expense of U.S. defenses? As Personman, who was also present at the Warrensburg town hall, observed in the comments to Bersin’s transcript, Hartzler played fast and loose in her comments about the implied Chinese threat, offering:

… no evidence that they’re [i.e. the Chinese] spending the money on this [i.e. military buildup], but just the suggestion that they could be. She also cites China when explaining why we shouldn’t cut defense. She doesn’t mention the fact that we’re outspending them 7 to 1 and have been for so long that her fears about China are probably unfounded

Hartzler, of course, is not the only winger parlaying fear of the Chinese into a tool to cut social spending. She may be silly enough to actually believe the twaddle she’s peddling, but, in the wider context, I think Dean Baker has the right of it:

So, why do all the deficit hawks talk about borrowing money from China? They do it for the same reason that George HW Bush talked about Willie Horton when he was running against Michael Dukakis. It works.

The deficit hawks want the country to agree to take steps that are incredibly unpopular. They want the public to support the gutting of essential support programmes for the middle class like social security and Medicare. Naturally, this is a hard sell. Therefore, if it takes a little China bashing to make the policy go down easier, the deficit hawks are perfectly prepared to go that route. That’s the way politics works in the United States.

* Gross national debt is made up of intragovernmental debt and public debt or net debt; foreign debt is that portion of public debt that is held by foreign entities.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 2

13 Saturday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

4th Congressional District, missouri, town hall, Vicky Hartzler, Warrensburg

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg (August 10, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 1 (August 11, 2011)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) at the Community Center in Warrensburg, Missouri on August 10, 2011.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a series of town halls on Wednesday in the 4th Congressional District. We attended the afternoon town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg. There were dissenting views and push back at both town halls, but the one in Warrensburg was by far the more raucous.

“…We had a balanced budget…”

Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1970 to 2009, in Billions of Dollars

1998 69.3 [billion dollar surplus]

1999 125.6

2000 236.2

2001 128.2

Yes, we did.

This is the second part of the transcript:

…Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Federal, uh, debt limit, just had a big discussion with that. Fourteen point three trillion dollar debt we have. Uh, here’s the history, you see it’s gone up and up, you know, for a long time. Uh, Congress put a limit on the amount of borrowing the country could do. And then over the years, obviously the more programs that are, uh, approved, the more it costs then eventually you run up to, you gotta go borrow some more money. So that’s what happened just a few weeks ago. And I went to Washington saying that I was not going to support us going further in debt and borrowing more money, uh, raising the debt ceiling unless we could make some permanent real structural changes and reforms and spending cuts that’s going to change this trajectory from going up, up, up to turn it around and start going back down so we can get a balanced budget. [applause]

Voice: Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section Four says you gotta pay the debt. [crosstalk] You gotta follow the Constitution…

…Representative Hartzler:  Here’s a little history of what [crosstalk] happened in April. At Standard and Poor’s, sir, listen, in, in April Standard and Poor’s downgraded the outlook and said we’re gonna have negative and in June Moody’s raised the possibility of downgrading it. Uh, so Congress knew they made it clear to us that unless you guys make some real permanent structural changes we’re gonna downgrade you. And then last week the final version passed and it didn’t go far enough. Standard and Poor’s had said you’ve gotta cut four trillion dollars at least. You need to put some, uh, permanent [crosstalk][inaudible]  in there. We hadn’t done that. Uh…

Voice: What, what, what about increasing taxes?

Voice: You want to pay more taxes?

Voice: Yes, I do.

Voice: Pay more.

Voice: Why do you not increase taxes?

Voice: You want to pay more taxes?

Voice: Yes, I do. [crosstalk] I do.

Voice: Well then do it.

Voice: I do, I do think that people should be taxed [voice: “Okay.”], particularly people who are making a lot more money than middle class. You guys are putting the middle class people [crosstalk] completely out of the [inaudible]. [crosstalk] Thank you.

Representative Hartzler:  When we get to question and answer you’ll get the first question. I’ll answer that [crosstalk]…thank you.  Anyway, it didn’t go far enough and they said that and so, you know, we had a, a downgrade situation. That’s why [crosstalk] I voted no on the final version of it.

Voice: Obama took it that far.

Representative Hartzler:  Let me give you a little history of that. The President came first of all this spring and says, I want you, Congress, to approve raising the debt ceiling clean without any spending cuts, without anything. Overwhelmingly a bipartisan, uh, group in the House, Republicans and Democrats said, no, that’s irresponsible, we can’t just keep kicking the can down the road, borrowing more money from China. So that failed. And then we started to other propositions, and bottom line, the House of Representatives said, we’re not going to raise it unless there’s some spending cuts and some changes. The final version that came up with last week, it was a tough vote, uh, and I appreciate all of you called and write, we had four thousand people called and write your, uh, comments. But, the overwhelming, you know, voice, that I got and my concern is that it didn’t go far enough ’cause it didn’t meet this standard. It didn’t cut four trillion dollars. It only cut seven trillion [sic] dollars next year. We’re borrowing four billion dollars every day. So it’s only gonna cut one and a half days worth of borrowing. You know, it, it’s not what we needed. We needed to do more. We’ve got to do more. So, that’s why I voted no. Uh, it did pass and, uh, like we found out with Standard and Poor’s it reduced the, uh, rate, our credit rating. It wasn’t enough. [crosstalk] But, there is still, there, there is several…

Voice: But the downgrade was based on, they said it was based on the inability of Congress [crosstalk] to deal with the issue.

Representative Hartzler: …there were several concerns. I read the Standard and Poor’s report today and handed out just part of it. Um, but anyway, it was other parts as well. They said it didn’t deal with entitlement reform, it didn’t deal with tax revenues, so it mentioned that, as well as it didn’t have the cut, uh, suspending that it wanted, at least four trillion. So there was at least four reasons in that. Anyway, now we need to do more. The, there’s gonna be this committee formed in the legislation, what [inaudible] called the super committee, whatever, but, it’ll have six House members and six Senate members. It’ll get together and they’re supposed to come up with, uh, cuts by the end of, November twenty-third. Uh, we’ll see what they do, but hopefully they’ll come up with something that’ll be helpful and, uh, so stay tuned on that front.

But, uh, here’s putting it in family terms just to see where we are. I thought, uh, constituent e-mailed me this yesterday and I thought it was helpful as far as our budget. Where we are is like an annual family making fifty-eight thousand seven hundred dollars, uh, but yet spending seventy-five thousand dollars, and having a credit card debt of three hundred twenty-seven thousand dollars. That’s like our current fourteen point three trillion dollar debt. The big cuts that were proposed in this bill last year would equal in this scenario about three thousand dollars. So, the family then would only spend seventy-two thousand dollars next year. So, you can see it’s really, uh, not where we need to be. You and I can’t run our households like this and Washington can’t either anymore. We need to change our ways. [crosstalk]

Voice: Well, if you’ve got four hundred fifty thousand dollar subsidies you can.

Representative Hartzler:  The balanced budget amendment, I believe is the best solution to this. Uh, and one good thing about last week’s proposal, it is gonna require a vote on the balanced budget amendment in Congress. So in the House and the Senate before, uh, December you’re gonna see a vote for the balanced budget amendment. I think this is the best hope to force Washington to live within its means. I don’t know how many of you remember this, I’d forgotten it ’til I got to Washington. But, sixteen years, nineteen ninety-five, Congress came one vote short of passing a balanced budget amendment. They passed with a two thirds in
the House, it passed, went to the Senate and in order to get two thirds they came up one vote short. So [crosstalk] some of my colleagues…

Voice: We had a balanced budget.

Representative Hartzler: …that I’ve gotten to know, there’s not very many of them there that have been there since then, a lot of us are new, but, uh, some of them have been there, just been talking about this the last two weeks saying, just think, if we had gotten that passed we wouldn’t be here today. Forty-nine states have some sort of a balanced budget amendment and it works. It forces politicians to live within their means. And it’s not easy, I know [state] Senator [David] Pearce [r] is here and, uh, but Missouri has a balanced budget amendment. And, uh, so, con, the General Assembly in Missouri can’t spend more money than comes in which forces them to make some tough choices. Uh, it’s not easy, but just like you and I at home, we don’t have enough money coming in we, you know, cut back a little bit. So, it works and, uh, I think it’s what we need in, uh, in Washington. [applause] If you agree then, uh, [inaudible] it’s a real, uh, real opportunity I said I’m already gonna vote for it so in the House you’ve got my vote for it. But if you like it I would encourage you to contact our two senators, uh, Roy Blunt and Claire McCaskill and let your voice know, or if you don’t like it, you know, let your voice know and hopefully we can build support and we get this done because we just can’t keep going down the road like we are at this time. Uh, that just talks about the different versions of balanced budget amendment.

I want to talk to you just briefly about jobs. [laughter] You know, uh, cutting, uh, spending is kind of depressing [crosstalk]…

Voice: Just briefly?

Representative Hartzler: …it need to be done. But the other half is raising revenue. You know, you and I know this. If we’re having a hard time at home, uh, we cut expenses or we pick up a little extra revenue. We get a little second job or we do something. And right now we got nine point two percent unemployment. A lot of places in the Fourth District it’s worse than that. Uh, we all probably know people that are hurting, looking for work, they can’t find it. So we gotta get people working again so they not only feel good about themselves, have, provide for their families, but, we’ll have more tax revenue coming in to our government, too. So, how do you get people working? Well, there’s two schools of thought and we, we may have different views on this. One view is for the government to try to create those jobs by like we did the stimulus package last year that went and borrowed more money from China and then put that to spec, put it out in the economy to specific projects to try, to try to create jobs. Uh, you remember when President Obama pushed that he promised that if Congress passed it we wouldn’t have unemployment more than eight percent. Well, [crosstalk]…

Voice: He never said that.

Representative Hartzler: …you know, uh, it’s gone [crosstalk] twenty-nine…

Voice: He never said that.

Voice: He did say that.

Representative Hartzler: …above, you know, nine percent. And so that hasn’t worked out. So the other theory, uh, idea is to get more private sector jobs. And the way to do that is to talk to small business owners and say, and I have in the Fourth District a lot, say, why aren’t you hiring? What does Washington need to do to help you in your business so you go out and put more people to work. You know what they tell me? Get government off our backs. [applause] Leave us alone. So that’s more what I have been trying to do in the House is to push back on the things that are causing small business owners to not hire workers. One, regulations. There are way too many regulations that are stifling jobs. Here’s a few examples. Uh, EPA is out of control. They’re, they’re trying to regulate our greenhouse gasses, uh, I live out in the country on a gravel road, uh, always have, I, we farm and they’re trying to regulate dust as if it’s a hazardous waste. I mean, like, you can’t do that. Uh, if you go down a gravel road you’re gonna have dust. So that’s hurting jobs. We got, uh, EPA cement regulations, uh, supposedly causing eighty thousand jobs. They’re trying to make fly, uh, fly ash a hazardous material. Well, you know what that’s gonna do for our cement and for our roads and the costs? I mean, that’s ridiculous. This hasn’t been found to be hazardous. And, uh, the moratorium on no drilling is costing thirty-six thousand jobs, at least, in the gulf. So, let’s move those regulations out. What we’ve been doing is passing some bills to try to push back on that. Uh, I cosponsored a bill called the Bulb Act which says basically let Americans use whatever kind of light bulb they want. [applause][crosstalk] [inaudible]…

Voice: How many jobs did that create?

Representative Hartzler: …and also in all our committees we have been having the government bureaucracies come before our committees and asking those hard questions. Why are you doing what you’re doing? Uh, we had EPA administrator before Agriculture Committee, we had the CFTC as they implemented Dodd/Frank bill that is making hard for small banks and our farming communities to give loans to our farmers. And so we’re pushing back on that. So we’re trying to do what we can with regulations.

A few other things we’re doing, uh, we’re, we believe we need to fix the tax code, uh, for everyone. Close loopholes, which we did in the House passed budget. We’ve already been proactive in trying to close those loopholes, but also, uh, for corporations. We have the highest corporate tax rate of any, uh, industrialized country now. And we wonder why companies go overseas, manufacturing companies do. Well, we need to kick them back here. And we need to do that by reducing the regulations, reducing the tax burden so that they’ll create jobs here. So that’s what we’re doing. We’re gonna have question and answer in just a little bit. [crosstalk] Hold that thought.

Voice: It, it’s been twenty minutes. You’ve been twenty minutes, Representative Hartzler.

Representative Hartzler: Well, I keep being interrupted. [laugh] You know, uh [crosstalk]…

Voice: Unruly school child.

Representative Hartzler: All right. We need to pass some trade agreements. That would help with manufacturing, uh [crosstalk] energy production, a way to reduce our gas prices.

Voice: How’s that gonna help us if there’s nothing to trade?

Representative Hartzler: So, there’s some things we’re doing. Bottom line, the deficit crisis didn’t happen overnight. We’re not gonna fix it overnight. But, the point is, we need to start now. We need to make some changes. So, that’s what we’re trying to do.

So, there you go. And we’re gonna, uh, I want to hear your ideas. One time I said I would go here first and then I’m gonna go back there. Thank you for waiting and being patient. I appreciate you guys. Thanks…

Question: I, I have two questions.

Representative Hartzler: Yes.

Question: First of all, what do you think about, what do you think what [crosstalk]…

Voice: Can you stand up and speak up so we can hear?

Representative Hartzler: I’ll, I’ll repeat the question. So that’s okay. [crosstalk][inaudible]

Question: What, what  is the essential function of government that you think? That’s number one. Number two, is that, you know, I grew up in India. I became a citizen in two thousand seven. And I think [applause] being an American is an idea. And it’s an idea that you be kind to your neighbor and you take care of other people. So, what, if you, if we are so afraid of taxing people who are making millions of dollars, and where our poor people, when I go to the Kansas City, work with schools, I see the poor neighborhoods. I don’
t know what, how you fix it unless people are willing to contribute to the other people’s well being.

Representative Hartzler: You have a, a,  [applause] you, you have a pure heart and that, that’s evident in your care for other people and, and what you want to do. and I think we all care about the poor. The question is, what is the best way to help somebody? Is it to give them a fish or is it teach them how to fish? And that’s an old adage. But it holds true. There’s a lot of governments that run more on a socialist type mentality or communist type mentality and they believe you should take money from this person and give it, and everybody be equal and that’s the way to have prosperity. But if you look at those governments you see they’re not prosperous. What you need to do is empower people to fish themselves, to, to, uh, go to the free enterprise system to start their own business, get the government so they don’t tax all their revenue so they can reinvest it and hire people. And that’s how you bring people up. Give them a hand up, you know, not a permanent [crosstalk] handout.

Voice: So you don’t cut Pell Grants, right?

Representative Hartzler: Anyway. [crosstalk] So, that, that’s my philosophy.

Voice: So you don’t cut Pell Grants, right?

Representative Hartzler: And as far as, uh, what I think the, the role of government is it’s in the Constitution. And, uh, so it’s outlined there. But one is to provide for the common defense but it’s do for people what they can’t do for themselves, so I think there’s a role in government in national defense, in, uh, in roads, in infrastructure, you and I can’t go build a road, so there’s some need for taxes and, you know, whether we can tax, uh, the quote rich some more or not, they’re already paying seventy percent of the taxes, maybe we will. [crosstalk] And you know, we’ll…

Voice: And they control forty percent of the wealth.

Representative Hartzler: …we’ll see. But class envy isn’t going to solve the problem either, uh. so, [crosstalk]…

Voice: George Bush tax cuts. [applause]

Representative Hartzler: …anyway. All right, [inaudible] thank you for waiting patiently.

Voice: We, we, we do have high corporate taxes [inaudible] through their deductions.

Representative Hartzler: Yeah.

Voice: When it’s all said and done we’re not the highest, we’re way down the line. [voices: “Hear, hear.” “Yeah.”][applause] GE should have to pay just as much tax at least as I do.

Representative Hartzler: Yeah, I agree. [crosstalk][inaudible] I agree. I, uh, [crosstalk]…

Voice: But who wrote the [inaudible]? The same guy that’s on [crosstalk] the President’s.

Representative Hartzler: I, I, uh, I appreciate your comment. In fact, the last town hall, we have had four today, and I brought that GE thing because I heard that I was aghast. I’m like how can a corporation like that not pay any taxes? And so I had my office look into it and they shared [voices: “Shhh.”] a lot of the loopholes, but, one of ’em is unbelievable.  That if you buy these electric cars they get seventy-five hundred dollars a car, they bought five thousand of them. I mean, it’s, it’s crazy. It’s wrong. And that’s part of the loopholes that I think we need to be closing. So I agree. Yes, sir.

Question: Yes, thank you for coming and thank you for listening. I appreciate that. Um, I guess my question would be and I’ll try to explain why, my question is, uh, not necessarily how are you going to get things done, but will Congress get some things done? Because I didn’t vote for you, I’m not, I agree with some of the things that you’ve said and I don’t agree with some of the others. But, what we watched, I think, what we watched on the debt ceiling debates was an embarrassment. [voices: “Yes!” “Yeah.”][applause]

Voice: We can’t hear him back here.

Question: I said, where are you, hi, I said, what we watched in the debt ceiling debates, was in my opinion, an embarrassment. All of our congressmen and congresswomen and senators were more interested in disagreeing with one another then coming together and finding a solution. And it was, I thought it was disrespectful, for example, for [House Majority Leader] Eric Cantor [R] to just say to the President of the United States, I won’t talk to you anymore. I think that, I think it was dis, I think it was disrespectful and, quite honestly, I have lost so much faith in our representatives in con, in government that I don’t think anybody’s looking out for my interests. [applause] I think they’re making , that all they want to do is make sure that the other side is not successful. [voice: “Yes.”] Quite honestly, if you are successful, quite honestly, if you are successful, whether I agree with the way you did it or not, if you are successful our country is successful and I support you. And we’re nowhere near that anymore. And for us to, we’ve degraded education. I teach fu, future teachers at the university. And it’s hard to convince kids that teaching is a great profession. It’s the greatest profession. But when their, their elected officials stand up on television in front of the press and degrade our teachers and our schools and how could you give them a hand up other than to teach them? Well how do you teach them? How? You fund those schools? It’s just, there are, there is not one answer to anything that we do. There’s not an answer to schools. There’s not an answer to the budget. There’s not an answer to anything else. But somebody there has got to stop and start listening. And there has to be compromise. We’ve got to fix that. But, I’m convinced that it doesn’t, anymore in our Congress that no one is interested in anything other than what the other side doesn’t want. And I think a great example, quite honestly, was the President of the United States came to the Republi, the, to the, the Congress and said, here, we’ll cut four trillion dollars, that’s what you wanted, and I’ll put entitlements on the table as negotiable and all of a sudden the Republicans turned around and said, nah, that’s too much. We need to back off. [voices: “That’s what happened.” “That’s exactly what happened.”]…

The transcript of the town hall will continue in subsequent posts.

House Redistricting officially going to the judges

12 Friday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Missouri State House, Redistricting

The educated guesses appear to have been correct, as the 18 member bipartisan House Redistricting Commission deadlocked on drawing the 163 districts.

Both sides unveiled new maps yesterday but couldn’t move towards a map for their final meeting.

Deeper reviews of both maps might be posted on here although it’s kind of a look at maps that are frozen due to the impasse.

Since the Commission deadlocked, the Missouri Supreme Court will appoint six members of the Court of Appeals to draw districts by December.

The Senate Redistricting Commission might deadlock and require judges to draw the Senate map as well.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Campaign Finance: “…and they shall sow the public right of way and all the empty lots across the land with their yard signs…”
  • What color is the sky in Denny’s (r) world?
  • Burg Resist – Defend Democracy Rally and Voter Registration Drive – Warrensburg, Missouri – October 3, 2026
  • Schmitt’s Very Bad Week
  • Campaign Finance: an emphatic “NO”

Recent Comments

Campaign Finance:… on Campaign Finance: bring a nuke…
Campaign Finance:… on Campaign Finance: Next
Steve Duane Phipps on Burg Resist – Defend Dem…
What color is the sk… on Being obtusely wrong still mak…
What color is the sk… on Justice Brett Kavanaugh…

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • 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

  • 1,090,322 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...