Once again the forces of evil are trying to get themselves reelected. This time those who say they are defenders of our Constitution are stabbing that document in the heart by trying to deny people their right to vote.

Like Jason Voorhees in some bad ‘Friday the Thirteenth” movie, voter ID has been resurrected.  No matter how often the courts and good and decent people shoot it with a silver bullet or put a wooden stake through its heart, it comes back to life.

A few years ago, Missouri passed a voter ID bill which, fortunately, was struck down by the Missouri’s Supreme Court. Let me relate the problems I had with the law before it was overturned.

If you’re an 87 year old woman who has lived in the St. Louis area for your whole life, had a driver’s license for over fifty years, never been a felony, and wants to vote –  Good luck. Especially, for anyone that does not have someone to escort them around.  At least that’s what I found out trying to help my mother in law to get a voter ID card.

I and the rest of the family had the emotional task of moving my in laws from a retirement home to full time care.  Along with the physical move came the administrative nightmare of changing the address, phone number, cable, and insurance. Now, add to that list getting voter ID cards.    

My father in law would be a lesser problem.  I had his birth certificate; and being a man, he has never had a name change. Unfortunately, without her birth certificate, my mother in law would be a challenge.  

I went to the Department of Revenue website to see what I needed to do.  If you were renewing a valid driver’s license, it was clear that there was an exception for needing a birth certificate for those over 75 year old. It was less clear for my mother in law, who hasn’t had a valid license this millennium.  

A call to the DOR, in Jeff City, quickly confirmed her need for a birth certificate.  My request that Governor Blunt go over to Illinois and pick it up for me was met with a chuckle and an “I don’t think so.”  That chuckle turned to laughter as she overheard me mutter, “Only two more years.”

A call to the St. Clair County recorder verified that, yes, indeed my mother in law was born; and for only $11.95, I could confirm it.  I thought I was home free, but then I remembered that the website had said something about other proof being need if there was a name change.  I realized her birth certificate would have a name different than the one she has used for the last 67 years.

Another call to Jeff City established that indeed a marriage certificate was needed. A call to St. Louis County would substantiate that for another $6.00, I could affirm that she was not living in sin.

Now, I am not against jumping through some hoops if there really was a problem in voter fraud, but my feeling is this was just an example of what business school textbooks refer to as management by exception.  An example of management by exception would be a teacher demanding a 1000 word essay on getting to school on time from the entire class just because one particular child is always late.  

The nexus of voter ID law lies in the election of 2000.  The St. Louis Board of Elections sent out a letter to all registered voters who had not voted within the last year warning those not replying would be removed from the voter list.  This resulted in 33,000 names taken off the list.

Lacy Clay, running for his retiring father’s Congressional seat, warned the Board that they had taken thousands of legitimate voters off the list; and if they didn’t allow these people to vote, they would be sued.  The Board did not relent and chaos rained on November 7th.  

Because of that chaos, a federal judge ordered the polls open until 10 PM and to accept votes from anyone that showed up.  The voter’s registration would be verified later.  The next day a firestorm of protest began with Senator Bond’s hysterically, fist pounding, accusatory speech.  The culmination of this outrage is the current voter ID law.

Was there massive voter fraud, or was this new law just management by exception punishing all voters because of the abuse of a few?

Secretary of State Matt Blunt investigated the 2000 election and found that out only 135 people that voted were not registered.  In addition, 14 dead people voted, 86 voted twice and another 1400 votes were in one way or another questionable.  

Those numbers might seem shocking, but put into context the questionable votes were only six hundredths of one percent of the total Missouri vote.  That’s like worrying about 60 cent of a 1000 dollar bill.  All Missourians are now being punished for the misdeeds of an extremely small minority.  This is classic management by exception.

In the rush to correct a flaw that was affecting only a few hundred votes, politicians are disenfranchising ten of thousands of elderly and disabled.  Despite hundreds of thousands of Missourians needing non driving voter ID’s, less than 500 were issued in the first month of the program.  

In a Post Dispatch poll, only 18 percent of Missourians favored voter ID’s.  In the Legislatures’ special session four years ago, legislators need to be repeal or revised the voter ID law so Missourians are ruled by what is best for the majority not by exceptions.

Yesterday, GOP Senator Roy Blunt’s office sent out a press release touting his co-sponsorhip of legislation that would permit congress to authorize the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline:

This project would create 20,000 American jobs, generate $20.9 billion in new private sector spending, reinforce America’s energy security, and benefit 1,400 American job creators – all without costing taxpayers a dime,” Blunt concluded. “This project is good for America’s job creation and energy independence, and that’s why I’m proud to join my colleagues to co-sponsor this bill.

As is often the case with the esteemed Senator Blunt, the statement above is replete with misstatements and exaggerations:

— Unbiased studies put the number of jobs that XL Keystone would create at 6,000 temporary jobs tops, and some estimates are as low as 2,000 – or even that the project will kill more jobs than it will create.

— The U.S. is now a net exporter of products made from crude oil; any oil piped to the Gulf along Keystone would be sold to the highest bidder, countries like Mexico and China. Consequently, completion of the pipeline has little to do with energy independence.

So why is Blunt overstating the benefits?  There are two likely reasons:

1. Political gamesmanship:  Congressional Republicans are, as TPM’s Sahil Kapur argues, trying to exploit Democratic divisions and push Obama into a corner politically:

… It’s a question of whether we’d rather have the pipeline or the issue,” a GOP aide said in December. They chose the issue, bringing into question how much they care about the pipeline itself. Indeed, not forcing a decision would have neutralized the politics surrounding the matter.

But now Republicans have turned it into a weapon, and the politics are win-win for them. Their base overwhelmingly supports the pipeline and its capacity for some temporary job creation puts them on the right side of the most important issue on voters’ minds in this election year.

For Democrats, the issue is a headache because their constituencies are split: environmentalists oppose it, while labor and big business have forged an unlikely alliance in its favor. The GOP push may not yield anything substantive, but it forces Obama to keep taking sides within his base, and answer to Republican attacks that he’s blocking a job creation opportunity.

2. Money. When the senator in question is Roy Blunt, money always seems to enter the equation somewhere down the line.  As Think Progress reports, senators who have supported Keystone XL have been well paid by PACs representing Big Oil. Of the 35 senators listed by Think Progress,  Senator Blunt, as befits a new member of the senate leadership, has done very well for himself, having received $39,000, the third largest contribution.

Once again we are about to see corruption and political games trump reasoned and careful policy making. And, once again Roy Blunt’s right in the middle of it all. If you’re nostalgic for the Good Old Days in the Bush administration, it seems like your time has come again – if it ever went away, a proposition that may have been put to the lie by the election of Roy Blunt to the Senate.

Previously: The GOP approach to government finance vs. reality. (January 16, 2012)

We had a lively exchange about HJR with Representative Chris Kelly (D) two weeks ago. As WillyK, the author of the original post, wrote in a comment:

So, Representative Chris Kelly (D) sent us the following on HJR 43:

PUT SOME AWAY FOR A RAINY DAY

“Let Pharaoh take action to appoint overseers in charge of the land, and let him exact a fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt in the seven years of abundance. Then let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming, and store up the grain for food in the cities under Pharaoh’s authority, and let them guard it. Let the food become as a reserve for the land for the seven years of famine which will occur in the land of Egypt, so that the land will not perish during the famine.”  Genesis 41, 34-36

Representative Eric Burlison (R-Greene) has introduced House Joint Resolution 43 to limit the amount of General Revenue Missouri State government may spend in any given year and to provide for reserve funds to be used in times of emergency and economic downturns.  HJR43 is similar to previous resolutions sponsored by former House Budget Chairman Allen Icet. As a Democrat, I support this bill. This is my reasoning…

…If adopted by a vote of the people, HJR43 would work as follows:  In any given year the percentage of state spending could increase by the sum of: 1) the percent of population growth, 2) the percent increase of the Consumer Price Index, and 3) 1.5% of the previous year’s budget.  If additional revenue remained available, the next one percent would be assigned to retire outstanding State debt.  Additional available dollars would automatically flow into the cash operating reserve fund to be used for emergencies and in times of economic downturn.  If additional revenue remained and the cash operating reserve fund was filled, it would trigger a one-time reduction in individual income tax rates.

I offered an amendment to Rep. Burlison’s bill, which would use FY2008 as the base year to trigger this law, rather than FY2010, as originally proposed. That is, the entire plan would take effect only when state general revenue reached the FY2008 level, at almost exactly eight billion dollars.  The FY2010 budget was a low point in recent state history, and would have triggered this action at a much lower level. My amendment was subsequently passed by the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee, and will be included in the bill as voted upon by the full House of Representatives.

The Cash Operating Reserve Fund would require about $325 million to be filled. These funds could be used in case of emergency, such as the 1993 flood or the 2011 Joplin tornado, upon request of the Governor and an affirmative vote of two-thirds of both Houses or, in years of negative economic growth, upon agreement of the Governor and a simple majority of both Houses.

To illustrate let us assume that HJR43 were in effect now.  This year our General Revenue is about $7.33 billion.  Nothing could happen–this law would not come into play–until revenue grew back to $8 billion. That alone allows for growth of $670 million, a growth rate of about 8%.   Let us then assume that the year after revenue reaches $8 billion–let’s call it Year 2–Missouri experiences revenue growth of ten percent ($800 million)–a growth rate that has happened only twice in the past twenty years.  

Let us further assume zero population growth and a CPI (Consumer Price Index) growth rate of 3% in Year 2.

Zero population growth plus $240 million (3% of $8 billion) plus $120 million (the additional 1.5% allowed in the HJR) equals $360 million of new spending (on top of the $670 million spent in the previous year).  

$80 million (1%) would then be used to pay debt service, leaving an additional $360 million to flow into the cash operating reserve fund.  At this point there would be no money remaining for any tax rebate but, in any future year, revenue in excess of $360 million, adjusted for inflation, would be returned to taxpayers as a temporary reduction in all state individual income tax rates.

The net result is that the State would have used $360 million for education, public safety, corrections, health, mental health, while all of the other essential state services would have healthy balances in the reserve funds, have less public debt and be prepared to provide temporary reduction in all state individual income tax rates in future years. (I have purposely used low numbers for population growth and CPI.  Any increases in those numbers would result in more money being available for appropriation.)

When State Revenue reaches the FY2008 Base Year Revenue of $8B,

State spending would be allowed to increase by:

% Population Growth + % Increase in CPI + 1-1/2% of the Previous Year’s Budget

Example: = 0 + (3% x $8B) + (1.5% x $8B) = allowable spending

= 0 + $240M + $120M =  $360M

In this example, if total revenue were $8.8B in Year 2

($8B base + $800M additional revenue):

•  $360M could be used to increase spending

•  1% ($80M) would go to Debt Service  (1% of the 2008 Base Year Budget of $8B)

•  The remaining $360M would be placed in the Cash Operating Reserve Fund.

•  With the $800M exhausted ($360M + $80M + $360M), no revenue would flow to the

   taxpayer protection and stabilization fund in Year 2

Opposition to HJR43 takes two major forms:

First, opponents argue that no limit on state spending is necessary–the legislature, comprised as it is of rational and thoughtful people, will use its’ best judgment and spend the increases wisely.  One of the disadvantages of being the longest serving member in the Legislature is that I can remember things.  In 1996, state revenue grew by more than 10%. Democrats, who controlled both Chambers and the Governor, were terrified that the Hancock Amendment might actually work to trigger refunds so they repealed the sales tax on prescription drugs and food.  In 2007 state revenue growth again topped 10%. The Republicans, who controlled the Governorship and both Chambers, emulated the Democratic folly and decreased the income tax.  Together these two permanent tax decreases cost the State more than $525 million.  Of course, in the years immediately following, the revenues returned to more normal levels and the state was left with the disaster created by enacting permanent solutions to the temporary problem of unusually high one-time revenue.  In neither case was either party willing to save money for a rainy day.  It would have been far better for the Democrats in 1996 to allow Hancock to work and far better if the Republicans would have practiced the prudence that Republicans preach and saved the money in 2007.  Alternatively, they both could have enacted a one-time taxpayer rebate.

We can be certain that Missouri will face crises in the f
uture.  The 1993 flood should have provided ample forewarning for the Joplin tornado and the economy will inevitably wax and wane.  The empirical evidence is that without some kind of reasonable braking mechanism the Legislature will not save sufficiently to meet the natural and economic crises that are certain to come.  It is also important to realize that by most every assessment we will never again see a circumstance under which the Hancock Amendment’s limitations to state spending would be imposed.  HJR43 is, in essence, a replacement of the Hancock Amendment, not an addition to it.

The other objection to HJR43 is that it is a TABOR bill.  TABOR, the so-called Tax Payer Bill of Rights, is the measure enacted by the voters of Colorado in 1992 that caused serious economic dislocation in that state and which has since been substantially modified.  TABOR and HJR43 are similar only to the extent that the limitation on spending growth is based on population and CPI.  TABOR contained none of the mitigating protections in HJR43 (the additional 1.5% growth, the 1% for debt service, or the emergency and stabilization funds).  HJR43 also contains a sunset clause (of 5 years), which TABOR did not. TABOR contained substantial restrictions on local governments, again which HJR does not.  The only reasonable way a person might compare HJR43 to TABOR is to argue that any constitutional limit on governmental spending is inappropriate.  Some opponents refer to HJR43 as “TABOR lite”.  I prefer to think of it as “TABOR rational”.  The evidence is strong that HJR43 will actually result in more stable, predictable, and gradual growth rather than the wide swings that we have experienced, especially because each time we have had a temporary upward swing in revenue, it was used as an argument to permanently decrease revenue.

An important difference exists between how much revenue the Government raises and how it manages that revenue.  I am now and have consistently been an unapologetic, pro-tax Democrat. Missouri clearly has insufficient revenue to cover the basic services required of state government. This year I have sponsored the Internet Sales Tax Bill.  Last year I sponsored an increase in the tobacco tax.  I was a proud supporter of Governor Mel Carnahan’s tax increase for education and, at the request of Governor John Ashcroft, was the successful sponsor of the largest tax increase in the history of the State of Missouri, the Federal Reimbursement Allowance.  

HJR43 is not a limit on taxes.  Under its provisions the people of Missouri are free to enact any taxes they choose and those taxes would be exempt from the provisions of HJR43.  HJR43 is a mechanism for the rational management of state dollars and a control over unrestrained growth. HJR43, if passed into law, would be enacted as a constitutional amendment only by a final vote of the people.  In an issue of this magnitude, that’s where the final say belongs.

Joseph, who I regard as the patron saint of governmental budget geeks, had it right.  Put some away for a rainy day.

Previosuly: Teresa Hensley (D) to challenge Vicky Hartzler (r) in the 4th Congressional District (January 19, 2012)

Oh, it’s official, the paperwork is in. Cass County Prosecutor Teresa Hensley (D) is definitely challenging Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) in the 4th Congressional District.

At the Federal Election Commission, the Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2):

The Statement of Committee Organization (FEC Form 1)

It’s interesting to note that former state Senator Harold Caskey (D), in the 31st Senate District – including Cass County, is campaign treasurer. Sarah Sudduth (D) who, if memory serves correctly, ran against Vicky Hartzler in the 124th Legislative District in 1998, is the custodian of records. It might be safe to say that Representative Hartzler may have had a little past difficulty garnering confidence in her abilities from the other side of the aisle.  

Quick, more lightbulbs

Full PPP Poll out tomorrow. (Get marshmellows). The other teasers: Brunner up, Steelman/Akin down, Mitt 3rd in the caucus.

Just wait until the voters hear about Dave Spence’s fraternity leadership. That’ll get Spence ($2.3M on hand/$65K spent) past Randles ($5K on hand/$58K spent) for sure.

On good authority (here, here and here), it seems that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) has a tax fairness bill, dubbed the Buffet Rule Bill, ready to go. Word has it that it’s easy – requires no fiddling with the tax code – and could be ready to go right away:

The bill would ensure that taxpayers who make over $1 million would pay at least a 30 percent tax rate on all their income, Whitehouse aides say. It would do this by requiring millionaires to calculate their overall effective tax rate under the regular system – by taking into account all their sources of income and the various rates they are taxed at.

Those taxpayers whose effective rate is under 30 pecent would be required to pay taxes on all their income at the 30 percent rate. (Charitable contributions that are deductible under the current system would be exempt from income calculations.)

For our local purposes, it’s important to note that Whitehouse plans to try to start the action right away:

Mr. Whitehouse said he had the support of at least two other Democrats on the bill. He planned to announce other names later on Monday, and more names will come after the nonpartisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation releases an official number for the amount of revenue the bill would raise. That “score” was requested by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, both Democrats.

Seems to me we need to do whatever we can to make sure that Claire McCaskill comes out as one of the prominent supporters – it could even be put to her as a litmus test. At the very least, good Missouri progressives need to start lobbying our entire Missouri contingent – Roy Blunt et al. – to support the Senate bill and something similar in the House. We need to know  who’s willing to stand up for fairness and who wants to continue forcing the American middle class to subsidize the Mitt Romneys of the world. Their position on the Buffett Bill will present a clear-as-day picture of where they all stand so we must impress upon them that they need to put up or shut up, the sooner the better.

And by shut up, I mean we need to be ready to huff and puff and blow down the house of cards that the GOP has been building to showcase their lame response to calls for tax fairness:  class warfare is bad, they say, except when it’s waged by the Rex Sinquefields of the world; God save us from the politics of envy when it might embarrass Mitt Romney and pals; free speech is good when it equates to big bucks from corporations and the rest of us only indulge when we’re in “quiet rooms.” Then there’s the all time GOP favorite claim that deficits can only be fixed cutting by benefits to the 99% which are mostly paid for by the 99%, while subsidies for the corporations and the 1% are to die for. Or, to consider another variant, raising taxes on the 1% might make those rich folks so angry that they won’t create any jobs in the good ol; U.S. of A. – especially since their purchased pols have ensured that we play by rules that make really easy for them to take advantage of slave labor abroad.

But to get back to the more immediate issue – here’s how you contact Claire McCaskill to ask her to work for us:  506 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510;

Phone: (202) 224-6154; Web Contact Form: here

Don’t let Roy Blunt off the hook: 260 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC, 20510;

Phone: (202) 224-5721;

Web Contact Form: here

UPDATE: There are some indications that it’s a good time to hit Republicans with demands for tax fairness.

Today, via the Missouri Ethics Commission, Rex Sinquefield just dropped a lot of money on a committee:

C111024 01/30/2012 A SAFER MISSOURI Rex Sinquefield 244 Bent Walnut Westphalia MO 65085 Retired 1/28/2012 $885,000.00

[emphasis added]

According to their amended Statement of Committee Organization [pdf] filed on December 28, 2011, A Safer Missouri is supporting “Statuatory Amendment to RSMo Chapters 83, 84, 86 and 105, relating to Municipal Police Force, Version 7”. That would be about the 2012 ballot initiative concerning local control of the St. Louis Police.

Money speaks. Loudly.

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum will be in Cottleville, Missouri tomorrow afternoon for a “major address” which will propel Santorum towards winning a majority of the 0 delegates distributed by Missouri’s February 7th Republican Primary. Santorum will likely lead in Public Policy Polling’s poll for the February 7th primary, which is a hilarious display of Mittose Intolerance from some Republicans.

Santorum will be at St. Charles Community College at 2:30pm to talk about jobs, the economy, the social issues he obsesses about, and why Colleges (like the one he’s speaking at) are used to indoctrinate students. He may also wear a sweater.

This Santorum event is not being held in Cynthia Davis’ district, it’s being held one district to the East (Doug Funderburk’s district). Gotta admire their focus on targeting parts of Missouri that have elected Santorum-esque candidates before. Plus, both Santorum and Cynthia Davis are coming off of big losses in their last electoral pursuit.

If you cross paths with Rick Santorum while he is in Missouri, do not look him in the eyes or feed him after Midnight. It’s for your own good.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C001135 01/29/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Spinnaker Real Estate Partners, LLC 20 Marshall Street Suite 106 South Norwalk CT 06854 1/27/2012 $10,000.00

C001135 01/29/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC 701 Market Street Suite 800 Saint Louis MO 63101 1/27/2012 $100,000.00

C001135 01/29/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Clyde Turner Route 1 Box 4350 Naylor MO 63953 Retired Retired 1/27/2012 $1,200.00

C001135 01/29/2012 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI Alvarez & Marsal PAC 2001 K Street, NW Suite 803 Washington DC 20006 1/27/2012 $2,000.00

[emphasis added]

Dave Spence (r) really can’t complain:

C111205 01/26/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Missouri Professionals Mutual 287 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St Louis MO 63141 1/26/2012 $25,000.00

C111205 01/27/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Committee to Elect Ron Richard PO Box 2523 Joplin MO 64803 1/27/2012 $10,000.00

C111205 01/27/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Leslie Goldberg 38 Portland Dr. Frontenac MO 63131 Self Homemaker 1/27/2012 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

Think this one will suck all of the fundraising oxygen out of the state?