Sarah Steelman got an ad out all about the affront to religious freedom and how McCaskill and Obama are bad by proxy. (Check the news if you have somehow missed the nontroversy from last week).

When it comes to matters of Sarah Steelman and the current outrages of the 2012 Republican party, you need to check the record to see what happened in the past.

Back in 2001.. HB762 was moving through the Senate. The National Conference of State Legislatures describes the bill/law as follows:

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 376.1199 (2001) requires health carriers that provide pharmaceutical coverage to include coverage for contraceptives, excluding drugs and devices that are intended to induce an abortion. The law clarifies that coverage for prescriptive contraceptive drugs or devices is not excluded if prescribed for other diagnosed medical conditions. The law exempts specified insurance policies, including health carriers owned and operated by religious entities, from the provisions of the law. The law prohibits discrimination against an enrollee because of the enrollee’s request regarding contraceptive coverage. The law requires carriers to maintain the confidentiality of any individual’s request for contraceptive coverage. (HB 762)

Essentially this law is the “good kind” of birth control coverage in the eyes of the 2012 Republican Party, right? After all, it has exemptions for religious groups and it’s not the kind of coverage that spawns Sarah Steelman attack ads.

Actually, that stand seems to be to the left of the current 2012 Republican stance, judging by the whole matter of Roy Blunt trying to put a “Freedom of Conscience” amendment up to allow employers to opt-out of contraceptive coverage.

This sort of thing did come up in 2001.

John Loudon offered an amendment to the bill to make birth control coverage optional in the law. The vote on the amendment was 25-8 against.

The Ayes were John Cauthorn, Doyle Childers, Bill Kenney, Peter Kinder, David Klindt, John Loudon, Larry Rohrbach, and Morris Westfall.

The overall bill passed 153-0 in the House and 32-2 in the Senate (Loudon and Rohrbach opposed).

That Was Then.

We know that 2012 Sarah Steelman is all about the religious freedom. What about the Blunt Amendment? What about the concept of making contraceptive coverage optional?

Sarah Steelman to Claire McCaskill on Twitter: “are you going to sign on to @royblunt S1467 to protect rights of conscience or is 1st amendment meaningless to you? #mosen #tcot”

S1467 CRS Summary:

Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 – Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan or the purchaser or beneficiary (in the case of individual coverage) without penalty.  Declares that such plans are still considered to: (1) be providing the essential health benefits package or preventive health services, (2) be a qualified health plan, and (3) have fulfilled other requirements under PPACA.

Declares that nothing in PPACA shall be construed to authorize a health plan to require a provider to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. Prohibits a health plan from being considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services or to fulfill any other requirement under PPACA because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider.

Prohibits an American Health Benefit Exchange (a state health insurance exchange) or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing PPACA from discriminating against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of an unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services.

Creates a private cause of action for the protection of individual rights created under this Act. Authorizes any person or entity to assert a violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.

Designates the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination based on this Act.

Makes this Act effective as if it were included in PPACA.

Oh, That Is Now. Isn’t It.

There’s lots of speculation out there about the effect on the 2012 elections of all the money that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision has unleashed  – all the so-called issue ads paid for by big corporate stake-holders. Add to the corporate money, the fact that we know that negative ads work – we saw what several million dollars of televised trash-talk can accomplish a few weeks ago when the Romney greenback machine mowed down Newt Gingrich. Now add the final fillip – folks are free to lie themselves silly in these ads, and you end up with a situation where it’ll be difficult for anyone to withstand the big money boys who are out to buy them some gubment.

And guess what? The whole ugly shebang’s coming to a theatre near you. In fact, it’s already arrived. Last week the Chamber of Commerce debuted an attack ad aimed at Claire McCaskill:

As you noticed if you watched the video, the argument is simple, easy to digest and completely false:

Tell Claire McCaskill that Missouri doesn’t need government-run health care, we need jobs!

Obamacare will kill jobs. So why did Claire McCaskill cast a deciding vote for Obamacare in Washington, DC?

Missouri has overwhelmingly rejected government run healthcare. But McCaskill continues to support Obamacare.

Call Claire McCaskill and tell her Missouri doesn’t need government-run healthcare – 314-367-1364.

Fib number one is that Obamacare will “kill” jobs. This claim was debunked ages ago. It essentially rests on a creative misrepresentation of a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis in a report prepared by GOP House leadership over a year ago:

What follows is a story of how statistics get used and abused in Washington.

What CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job.

“The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount – roughly half a percent – primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,” budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year.

In fact, the Center for American Progress contends that repealing Obamacare will be the real job killer:

A successful repeal of health care reform would revert us back to the old system for financing and delivering health care and lead to substantial increases in total medical spending. The consequences of this spending increase would be far reaching. It would hurt family incomes, jobs, and economic growth.

Repealing health reform would:

— Increase medical spending by $125 billion by the end of this decade and add nearly $2,000 annually to family insurance premiums

— Destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade

— Reduce the share of workers who start new businesses, move to new jobs, or otherwise invest in themselves and the economy

The second, implicit, fib is that Obamacare is “government run health care.”  It is, sadly, no such thing. It’s no more than an effort to impose some accountability on a deeply flawed and unnecessarily expensive private system of health care delivery, while ensuring that most Americans have some type of access to good health care. Less than 20% of Missourians voted in the 2010 election in which the anti-Obamacare Proposition C was “overwhelmingly” endorsed. We’ll see just what happens when, as will be the case in 2012, the rest of us go out to the polls.

I would, though, echo one sentiment expressed in the Chamber’s terse little ad. Do, by all means, call Claire McCaskill – and thank her for standing firm and voting for the Affordable Care Act. No matter how she waffles and bobs and weaves in order to deflect political sticks and stones, that vote should be something that she can always point to and feel proud of what she did in Washington.  

Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler

The First Amendment isn’t something to be “balanced.” It must be revered in all areas of government! #religiousliberty #consciencerights 11:38 AM – 15 Feb 12

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler

I support conscience protections for all people and organizations. No one should be forced by the gov’t to violate their faith! #HR1179 11:40 AM – 15 Feb 12

Justice Antonin Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court in 1990, in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872):

….The “compelling government interest” requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., [p886] Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432 (1984), or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989), is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields — equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech — are constitutional norms; what it would produce here — a private right to ignore generally applicable laws — is a constitutional anomaly….

….If the “compelling interest” test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. Moreover, if “compelling interest” really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society’s diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because “we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference,” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. at 606, and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind — ranging from [p889] compulsory military service, see, e.g., Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), to the payment of taxes, see, e.g., United States v. Lee, supra; to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, see, e.g., Funkhouser v. State, 763 P.2d 695 (Okla.Crim.App.1988), compulsory vaccination laws, see, e.g., Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 377 S.W.2d 816 (1964), drug laws, see, e.g., Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 279 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 878 F.2d 1458 (1989), and traffic laws, see Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941); to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, see Susan and Tony Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985), child labor laws, see Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), animal cruelty laws, see, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 723 F.Supp. 1467 (S.D.Fla.1989), cf. State v. Massey, 229 N.C. 734, 51 S.E.2d 179, appeal dism’d, 336 U.S. 942 (1949), environmental protection laws, see United States v. Little, 638 F.Supp. 337 (Mont.1986), and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races, see, e.g., Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 603-604 (1983). The First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty does not require this….

….It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs….

[emphasis added]

A disadvantage for religious practices that are not widely engaged in? How ironic, via Public Policy Polling:

February 10, 2012

Our polling on the birth control issue

[….]

– 56% of voters generally support the birth control benefit, while 37% are opposed. Independents strongly favor it, 55/36, and a lot more Republicans (36%) support it than Democrats (20%) oppose it. Women are for it by a 63/29 margin.

– Only 39% of voters support an exemption for Catholic hospitals and universities from providing the benefit, while 57% are opposed to one.

– There is a major disconnect between the leadership of the Catholic Church and rank and file Catholic voters on this issue. We did an over sample of almost 400 Catholics and found that they support the benefit overall, 53-44, and oppose an exception for Catholic hospitals and universities, 53-45. The Bishops really are not speaking for Catholics as a whole on this issue.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Effectively, Representative Hartzler (r) wants to use a law (HR 1179) to enforce the rules of a religious hierarchy over its members (and everyone else).  

Previously: Initiative petitions on raising the tobacco tax (February 14, 2012)

At the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121042 01/27/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION American Cancer Society, High Plains Division, Inc. 2433 Ridgepoint Drive Austin TX 78754 1/26/2012 $217,622.00

C121042 02/09/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION American Cancer Society, High Plains Division Inc. 2433 Ridgepoint Dr Austin TX 78754 2/8/2012 $82,500.00

C121042 02/14/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Inc 555 11th Street NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20004 2/14/2012 $5,308.50

C121042 02/15/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City 2700 East 18th Street Suite 200 Kansas City MO 64127 2/15/2012 $350,000.00

[emphasis added]

When did Missourians for Health and Education start up and what do they want to do?:

C121042: Missourians For Health And Education

Po Box 412887 Committee Type: Campaign

Kansas City Mo 64141

(816) 820-8201 Established Date: 01/26/2012

[….]

Ballot Measure History

Statutory Amendment To Chapters 149 & 196 Rsmo Relating To Tobacco Taxation & Regulation 11/06/2012 Tobacco Taxation & Regulation Statewide Support

Let’s take a look at a bit of the Initial 15 Day Report filed on February 9th:  

EXPENDITURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS MADE

MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION [pdf] 2/9/2012

B. Itemized Expenditures All Over $100

Fieldworks, LLC 2852 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington DC 20008 1/27/2012 Signature gathering services $150,000.00

[emphasis added]

Yep, sign those petitions, because you just know big tobacco is gonna suck up all the air in the state (cough, cough) when their ad campaign starts up in three, two, one….

Sometime before the end of the month the Senate will be voting on a legislative amendment to the Affordable Care Act proposed by our own GOP Senator Roy Blunt, the Blunt-Rubio amendment, that proposes to deal with the Bishops’ disinclinaton to permit folks to purchase birth-control by allowing any insurance provider, religious, secular, what have you, to deny coverage for just abut anything as long as the provider has religious or moral objections. There’s lots of problems with this, of course, not least that it addresses a non-issue as far as any action that might threaten religious freedom, but Dave Weigel isolates one of the most serious problems:

Not to be too patronizing or anything, but the Constitution prohibits any bill establishing or restricting religious beliefs. Morals, though — that’s not in the Constitution, and that could mean anything. This creates an opening for Democrats. Greg Sargent talks to Elizabeth Warren, who walks right through it.

“I am shocked that Senator Brown jumped in to support such an extreme measure,” Warren told me by phone just now. “This is an all new attack on health care. Any insurance company could leave anyone without health care, just when they need it most… This is an extreme attack on every one of us. It opens the door to outright discrimination. It would let insurance companies and corporations cut off pregnant women, overweight guys, older Americans, or anyone – because some executive claims it’s part of his moral code. Maybe that wouldn’t happen, but I don’t want to take the chance.”

When you have regulations so loose that essentially anything goes, what do you have? The free-market anarchy so beloved of conservative ideologues, and so dear to the corporate types who benefit most from the loosening of all restraint. The Blunt-Rubio amendment owes little or nothing to any desire to preserve “religious freedom”; it’s simply part of the drive to restore the type of free-market anarchy that the Bush years were famous for, and for which we are all now paying the price.

Those who have been paying attention to facts rather than GOP rhetoric know that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. Obamacare, has already had a positive impact in a number of areas such as permitting parents to keep their young adult children on their existing insurance policies until they are 26, providing  affordable coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and strengthening existing and creating new community health centers (which also, incidentally, adds jobs). The primary goal of Obamacare, however, is to  extend insurance to uninsured Americans. As the Kaiser Foundation notes, starting in 2014, it will do so in two ways:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes two primary mechanisms for helping people afford health coverage. Starting in 2014, people with family incomes up to 138% of the poverty level ($31,809 for a family of four and $15,415 for a single person in 2012) will generally be eligible for the Medicaid program. And, people buying coverage on their own in new state-based health insurance exchanges will be eligible for federal tax credits to subsidize the cost of insurance. Tax credits will be calculated on a sliding scale basis for people with family income up to four times the poverty level ($92,200 for a family of four and $44,680 for a single person in 2012). …

The map below, from a new Kaiser Foundation report, shows the geographic distribution of the nonelderly Americans who stand to benefit from these twin programs:

Using the accompanying zip code based calculator provided by the Kaiser Foundation, one finds that in Poplar Bluff, Missouri 26% of the nonelderly population could benefit from these ACA programs; 20% are eligible for these programs in the Central Missouri area around Columbia. In my own relatively prosperous West St. Louis County zip code, 63011, from 8%-10% of the nonelderly population will benefit from either the Medicaid expansion or subsidized coverage available through the health care exchanges in 2014. Looks like the ACA stands to meet some serious need in much of Missouri, especially, as the map suggests, in extreme Southeastern, Northeastern and pockets in Southwestern Missouri.

Meanwhile, in the state Senate, a few die-hard anti-Obamacare zealots, like, for example, my own Senator Jane Cunningham (R-7), are standing in the way of the work that is needed to establish the insurance exchanges that the ACA mandates as the mechanism to provide low-cost, federally-regulated insurance to those who need it. They’ve stormed, raged and lied themselves blue in the face about what the ACA will do, and now they’re stalling, hoping against hope that the Supreme Court will uphold their extremist reading of the Constitution.

Bear in mind that if our intransigent lawmakers continue to stall and their trust in conservative judicial activism is not fulfilled, Missouri will not be prepared to submit a plan for an exchange by Jan. 1, 2013 – which means that the federal government will step in do the work that the state refuses to do. Given the general level of functioning that I see in Missouri governmental circles, that doesn’t seem like too much of a problem to me, but I do seem to remember that these folks are the very ones who constantly whine that the federal government can’t deal effectively with local needs.  As the News-Leader points out:

We already have a $20.8 million federal grant for the exchange. It’s not a question of money. It’s a question of political will. The Missouri House passed legislation moving the state-based exchange forward. The Missouri Senate should do the same. And Gov. Jay Nixon should be stepping out front to lead on this important issue.

Hear! Hear!

From Jesse Lee at the White House, via Twitter:

Jesse Lee @jesseclee44

Report: 54M more Americans got preventive care in 2011 b/c of #hcr 1.usa.gov/z0stUq GOP’s Blunt amendment would nix that guarantee 12:04 PM – 15 Feb 12

From the Department of Health and Human Services:

Fifty-Four Million Additional Americans Are Receiving Preventive Services Coverage Without Cost-Sharing Under The Affordable Care Act (February 2012)

And there’s this:

Posted at 11:09 AM ET, 02/15/2012

Why birth control is a good wedge issue against the GOP

By Greg Sargent

Some time around the end of February, the Senate will vote on the Blunt-Rubio amendment, which would allow insurers and employers to deny coverage for birth control or any other medical services simply on the grounds that they find them morally objectionable….

[emphasis added]

Senator Roy Blunt (r) wants to completely dismantle health care reform with this amendment.

And there’s this:

Mapping the Effects of the ACA’s Health Insurance Coverage Expansions

Who Benefits From the Affordable Care Act’s Coverage Expansions?

[The detail of Missouri from the map above. Roy Blunt’s old House district could lose a lot of coverage.]

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes two primary mechanisms for helping people afford health coverage. Starting in 2014, people with family incomes up to 138% of the poverty level ($31,809 for a family of four and $15,415 for a single person in 2012) will generally be eligible for the Medicaid program. And, people buying coverage on their own in new state-based health insurance exchanges will be eligible for federal tax credits to subsidize the cost of insurance. Tax credits will be calculated on a sliding scale basis for people with family income up to four times the poverty level ($92,200 for a family of four and $44,680 for a single person in 2012). (A calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the assistance people would be eligible for at different income levels and ages.)

The share of the population who will benefit from new Medicaid eligibility and the new health insurance tax credit will vary substantially throughout the country. We’ve illustrated that variation by estimating the share of the population in over 2,000 geographic areas across the U.S. who had family income up to four times the poverty level in 2010 and were either uninsured or buying coverage on their own.

On average, an estimated 17% of the non-elderly population nationwide would benefit from the Medicaid expansion and tax credits. In parts of Florida, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and California, 36-40% of population could benefit.  In areas of Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, and Connecticut – states that generally have high levels of employer-provided health insurance or have already implemented reforms to make insurance more accessible and affordable – 2-4% of the non-elderly could benefit from the coverage expansions in the ACA….

And, a press release from the Department of Health and Human Services:

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

News Division                                  

HHS Press Office

[….]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Affordable Care Act extended free preventive services to 1,102,000 Missouri residents with private health insurance in 2011

Free preventive care also provided to 729,472 Missouri residents in Medicare

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today that the Affordable Care Act provided approximately 1,102,000 Missouri residents with at least one new free preventive service in 2011 through their private health insurance plans. Secretary Sebelius also announced that an estimated 729,472 Missouri residents with Medicare received at least one free preventive benefit in 2011, including the new Annual Wellness Visit, since the health reform law was enacted.

Together, this means an estimated 1,831,472 Missouri residents were helped by health reform’s prevention coverage improvements. The new data were released in two new reports from HHS.

“Americans of all ages can now get the preventive services they need, like mammograms and the new Annual Wellness Visit, free of charge, as a result of the new health care law,” Secretary Sebelius said. “With more people taking advantage of these benefits, more lives can be saved, and costly, and often burdensome, diseases can be prevented or caught earlier.”

Nationwide, the Affordable Care Act provided approximately 54 million Americans with at least one new free preventive service in 2011 through their private health insurance plans. And an estimated 32.5 million people with Medicare received at least one free preventive benefit in 2011, including the new Annual Wellness Visit, since the health reform law was enacted. Together, this means an estimated 86 million Americans were helped by health reform’s prevention coverage improvements.

The Affordable Care Act requires many insurance plans to provide coverage without cost sharing to enrollees for a variety of preventive health services, such as colonoscopy screening for colon cancer, Pap smears and mammograms for women, well-child visits, and flu shots for all children and adults. The law also makes proven preventive services free for most people on Medicare.

The report on private health insurance coverage also examined the expansion of free preventive services in minority populations.  The results showed that an estimated 6.1 million Latinos, 5.5 million Blacks, 2.7 million Asian Americans and 300,000 Native Americans across the country with private insurance received expanded preventive benefits coverage in 2011 as a result of the new health care law.

The report discussing Medicare preventive services found that more than 25.7 million Americans (582,585 Missouri residents) in traditional Medicare received free preventive services in 2011. The report also looked at Medicare Advantage plans and found that 9.3 million Americans (200,712 Missouri residents) – 97 percent of those in individual Medicare Advantage plans – were enrolled in a plan that offered free preventive services.  Assuming that people in Medicare Advantage plans utilized preventive services at the same rate as those with traditional Medicare, an estimated 32.5 million Americans (729,472 Missouri residents) benefited from Medicare’s coverage of prevention with no cost sharing.

The full report on expanded preventive benefits in private health insurance is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/rep…  The report on expanded preventive benefits in Medicare and other ways that the Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare is available at http://www.cms.gov/newsroom/.

###

Anyone think any of those folks who are registered voters would be partial to voting for Roy Blunt in the future if they knew what he was up to? Not hardly.

Previously: Roy Blunt tries to pull a fast
one (February 10, 2012)

Previously: SJR 49: jumping on the bandwagon at the end of a one block parade (February 10, 2012)

Filed today, in the House:

HB 1730

Provides protections for religious beliefs as to the imposition of certain health care services such as abortion, contraception, or sterilization

Sponsor: Cox, Stanley (118)

Co-Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (013) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2012

LR Number: 5762L.01I

Last Action: 2/14/2012 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

Bill String: HB 1730

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Bill Summaries

Not Available

Bill Text

Not Available

Inconceivable.

A press release from the Missouri Secretary of State’s office:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, February 10, 2012

[….]

Six Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation for 2012 Ballot

Jefferson City, Missouri – The Missouri Secretary of State’s office today announced that six initiative petitions met state standards for circulation.

The ballot title for all six of the petitions relating to cigarette and other tobacco product taxation reads:

   Shall Missouri law be amended to:

   *    create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds of a tax of $0.0365 per cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15% for other tobacco products;

   *    use Fund proceeds to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding; and

   *    increase the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and create bonding requirements for these manufacturers?

   Estimated additional revenue to state government is $283 million to $423 million annually with limited estimated implementation costs or savings. The revenue will fund only programs and services allowed by the proposal. The fiscal impact to local governmental entities is unknown. Escrow fund changes may result in an unknown increase in future state revenue.

The petitions, which would amend Chapters 149 and 196 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, were submitted by Mr. Robert Hess, Husch Blackwell, LLP, 235 E. High St., PO Box 1251, Jefferson City, MO 65102-1251.

For statutory changes, signatures must be obtained from registered voters equal to five (5) percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor’s election from six of the state’s nine congressional districts.

Signatures on behalf of all initiative petitions for the 2012 ballot are due to the Secretary of State’s office by no later than 5 p.m. on May 6, 2012.

Before circulating petitions, state law requires that groups must first have the form of their petition approved by the Secretary of State and Attorney General. The Secretary of State then prepares a summary statement of no more than 100 words and the State Auditor prepares a fiscal impact statement, both of which are subject to the approval of the Attorney General. When both statements are approved, they become the official ballot title.

— 30 —

Visit http://www.sos.mo.gov to find out more about the Missouri Secretary of State’s office.

###

[emphasis added]

From the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids:

….Tobacco tax increases offer a win-win-win solution for states, especially as they face a severe fiscal crisis and work to balance budgets while preserving essential public services.

Health Win: Tobacco tax increases are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and other tobacco use, especially among kids. Every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and total cigarette consumption by about four percent.

Budget Win: Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue, even while reducing smoking. Higher tobacco taxes also save money by reducing tobacco-related health care costs, including Medicaid expenses. States can realize even greater health benefits and cost savings by allocating some of the revenue to programs that prevent children from smoking and help smokers quit.

Political Win: National and state polls consistently have found overwhelming public support for tobacco tax increases. Polls also show that, when it comes to balancing budgets, voters prefer raising tobacco taxes to other tax increases or cutting crucial programs such as education and public safety….

Then again, the republican controlled General Assembly has more important things to address.

And, we’re number fifty!:

Fight Over Missouri’s Cigarette Tax Heats Up; Lung Association Gives State Failing Grade

By Chad Garrison Tue., Jan. 24 2012 at 9:52 AM

Missouri received its annual report card last week from the American Lung Association. The result ain’t pretty.

The state earned an “F” for tobacco prevention and control (spending just $58,693 last year to prevent tobacco use statewide); an “F” for smoke-free air (with legislators refusing to pass a statewide smoking ban and prohibitions in St. Louis and St. Louis County allowing people to continue to light up in bars and casinos); an “F” for its 17-cent per pack cigarette tax (the lowest in the nation) and an “F” for it cessation efforts with Missouri spending 53 cents per smoker when the CDC recommends at least $10.53 per smoker….

Currently the lowest cigarette tax in the nation. Cough.

Home economics and beer. That makes sense, if you think about it.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111205 02/14/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR August Busch III One Mid Rivers Mall Dr. St Peters MO 63376 Retired Retired 2/14/2012 $10,000.00

C111205 02/14/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Thomas Suntrup 10340 Manchester Rd. St Louis MO 63122 Suntrup Automotive Executive 2/14/2012 $1,000.00

C111205 02/14/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR FTL Capital Partners LLC 1215 Fern Ridge Pkwy Ste. 216 St Louis MO 63141 2/14/2012 $10,000.00

C111205 02/14/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR HTH Technologies 2021 Congressional Dr. St Louis MO 63146 2/14/2012 $10,000.00

C111205 02/14/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Nelson Grumney Jr 2 St. Andrews Dr. St Louis MO 63124 Neland Investment Management LLC Executive 2/14/2012 $10,000.00

C111205 02/14/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Steven Trulaske Sr 7700 Forsyth Blvd. Ste. 1220 St Louis MO 63105 True Manufacturing Co. Executive 2/14/2012 $50,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s $91,000.00, if you’re counting.

….Maybe everyone should just use one tune for their campaign soundtrack:

Uh, yep.