Check out the set on flickr.

From a town hall in Warrensburg, Missouri, August 10, 2011:

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

….Representative Hartzler: Okay, let me [crosstalk]…

Voice: You all were supposed to [inaudible] [crosstalk]on jobs when you came in office. [voice: “Yeah.”]

Representative Hartzler: Wait, wait, wait [crosstalk] just a minute.

Voice: Jobs!

Voice: That’s what you said.

Voice: You said you were jobs, you didn’t [crosstalk] say anything about fighting the President.

Representative Hartzler: All right [crosstalk]. Listen, listen [crosstalk]…

Voice: When, when you ran your campaign [crosstalk] the only thing we heard was jobs, jobs, jobs [crosttalk], jobs, jobs. [crosstalk] You get into office and the only thing we hear out of you now is abortion [inaudible].

Voice: We were gonna fix it, that’s what you said.

Voice: You said you were a teabagger and that you were gonna fight the President. Why?

Voice: Quiet down and listen.

Voice: [crosstalk] …farm subsidies….

Yesterday, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏ @RepHartzler

Press Conf. with fellow members today on Obama Admin decision to include abortion funding w/ new healthcare exchanges. [….] 2:46 PM – 21 Mar 12

Representative Hartzler’s (r) Twitter picture of the event.

There’s shouldn’t be surprise about priorities anymore.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111153 03/22/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY Missourians for Responsible Government P O Box 45571 Kansas City MO 64171 3/21/2012 $260,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s a lot of money. And they keep spending it on the same thing.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: if your name was Payday Loans you’d be in the money (March 2, 2012)

Campaign Finance: the payday loan campaign contribution broken record continues… (January 6, 2012)

Campaign Finance: Payday loans get the big bucks, again – part 2 (November 10, 2011)

Campaign Finance: Payday loans get the big bucks, again (September 27, 2011)

Campaign Finance: Isn’t that interest(ing)? (August 24, 2011)

Campaign Finance: big bucks for a payday loan PAC (August 20, 2011)

The posting guidelines for SMP caution posters about unnecessary invective, noting quite correctly that:

If you’re a good writer it’s relatively easy to show everyone else that someone is a stupid troglodyte without actually using those two words – and it’s much more fun to watch them slink away in silence after it finally dawns on them that they’ve been mocked into oblivion.

I, however, imperfect being that I am, struggle with that provision. There are certain epithets, usually having to do with intelligence, that, crude though they may be, seem to have been tailor made for certain Missouri politicos and it’s frustrating in the extreme to refrain calling it the way you see it. It seems, though, that I have company and the White House has been having the same problem. Today, on the topic of the Ryan Budget, Jay Carney finally let loose and socked its GOP cheering section with the observation that:  

… that Republicans who support the Paul Ryan budget’s cuts to education and clean energy have a “severely diminished capacity” and are “aggressively and deliberately ignorant” of the global economy.

I’ve got to admit that labels like “severely diminished capacity,” and even blunter designations – like “dim bulb” or plain, old, unvarnished “stupid” – have long been paired in my mind with the image of Rep. Todd Akin (R-2). And guess what? Todd has come out slugging for the Ryan Budget. Is that evidence of “severely diminished capacity” or what?

Not that Akin’s position is surprising. Nor is his basic complaint new, just hilarious. His nose has been perpetually out of joint because:

Under Republican leadership in the House, we have passed budgets which have died in the Democratic-controlled Senate which has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. I am pleased with the product that Chairman Ryan and the House Budget Committee have produced to maintain our obligations to our constituents.

Even a sweet, naive creature such as myself can figure out that the budgets emanating from the House are not really meant seriously. That would require thinking about how to reach agreement with the Democratic Senate, which is to say, figuring out how to craft a balanced approach. The House’s budgets make no such concessions to the realities of governing in a two-party system, but are nothing so much as the caterwauling of unruly Tea Party Tomcats who want to mark their territory. And you know what that means – House budgets are going to stink  until somebody takes care of those Toms.

According to Akin:

Our fiscally responsible common sense FY2013 budget improves upon last year’s Path to Prosperity by saving another $20 billion in American taxpayer funds. Our House Republican budget cuts federal spending, makes responsible cuts to the real drivers of our national debt, ends special interest favoritism and corporate welfare, embraces an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and gives American taxpayers more control over their healthcare decisions.

Come again? According to most analysts, Ryan’s budget will decimate safety-net programs, give big tax breaks to the wealthy and, despite all the misery it causes, still manage to deepen the deficit. Oh, and did I fail to note that the fiscal assumptions upon which Ryan bases this masterpiece have been called out as pure fantasy?

But the best part of Akin’s endorsement is when he declares with a straight face:

This budget also protects the Medicare benefits of near-retirees and helps ensure the long-term solvency of the program.

Let’s see – as has been readily apparent to almost everyone, it’s clear that Ryan 2012 guts Medicare, turning it into an inadequately funded voucher program within ten years, a program that would essentially cut seniors’ access to care and double their costs, effectively “ending Medicare as we know it.” But it also, and this is amusing,  retains the cuts to Medicare that would have been made under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare). These are the same cuts that the GOP have been screaming about in ads directed at Claire McCaskill – cuts to the subsidies that are paid to inefficient Medicare Advantage suppliers.

Of course, on this point, Akin isn’t being totally obtuse, just honest. He’s wanted to end Medicare for a long time and recently observed that, “I don’t find in the Constitution that it is the job of the government to provide health care.” Of course, abandoning programs that work because of ideology is one of those positions that are located far out there in the land of “severely diminished capacity.”

Slightly edited for clarity.

We journeyed to Jefferson City this morning, checked in at the House Communications Office and then set up our still cameras in a side gallery. Over the course of the morning session we had conversations with Representatives Joe Aull (D), Jason Kander (D), Chris Kelly (D), Jill Schupp (D) and Mary Still (D). Representative Denny Hoskins (r) crossed the aisle and we had a lengthy conversation in the side gallery about redistricting and its aftermath, the budget, revenues, and HB 1229.  

Speaker Steve Tilley (r) at the dais.

Stained glass above the press gallery and dais in the House chamber.

Representative Jill Schupp (D-82).

Old media in the press gallery above the dais. There’s a lot of space up there, but not very many people occupying it anymore.

 One gets the feeling that the paradigm has been changing and it isn’t finished just yet.

Debate across the aisle.

Representative Stephen Webber (D-23).

Representative Mary Still (D-25).

Minority Floor Leader Mike Talboy (D-37)(left) and Speaker Steve Tilley (r)(right) in conversation at the back of the House chamber.

After the noon recess in the House we encountered American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Communications Workers of America (CWA) members with signs marching to the Capitol steps. After a few cheers the union members were instructed to leave their signs in a pile for collection before the went into the building. Later in the afternoon we encountered small groups in the halls  and offices speaking to individual members of the House.

Which side are you on? Which side are you on?

As the AFSCME, CWA and SEIU members gathered in front of the steps Representative Mark Parkinson (r) was exiting the building. We greeted each other and had a pleasant enough conversation. Apparently, Representative Parkinson believes public workers should be happier then they are.  

In front of the Post Office across the street from the Capitol in Jefferson City:

“Honk for Peace”

Update:

“…[We] have been there nearly every Wednesday since early 2003 from 12-1ish…”

A press release from Senator Claire McCaskill (D):

McCaskill Rejects Proposal to Weaken Medicare, Focuses on Jobs

Senator: House of Representatives should focus on job-creation, drop ‘obsession’ with turning Medicare into voucher program

March 20, 2012

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today released the following statement in response to the U.S. House of Representatives budget proposal which would weaken Medicare while providing huge tax giveaways to corporations and the richest Americans:

“Too many members of Congress who told us they’d focus on job-creation, instead seem willing to pull the rug out from under Missouri’s seniors in order to reward corporations and the richest Americans. They need to drop their obsession with turning Medicare into a voucher program and start finding ways to put more Americans back to work.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Congressman Paul Ryan announced his federal budget proposal this morning-a plan which would weaken Medicare by shifting the cost of care to seniors instead of insurance companies. The budget plan would also dramatically restructure America’s tax code to favor big corporations and the wealthiest Americans, while preserving existing tax giveaways such as those for big oil companies.

Meanwhile, McCaskill is supporting efforts in the Senate this week to pass legislation boosting American exports in order to support manufacturing and agriculture jobs in Missouri and across the country. The bill under consideration would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States-an agency that supports American manufacturers and producers without adding to the national deficit.

McCaskill heard from Missouri seniors late last year at town hall meetings across the state, where she discussed her work to protect and sustain Medicare and Social Security. Previously, McCaskill led the fight to pass legislation protecting seniors from predatory lending after holding two field hearings to get input from Missourians. McCaskill was honored by the AARP for her work to protect seniors from mortgage fraud.

###

[emphasis in original]

There is a difference.

“…House Budget Committee Chairman Congressman Paul Ryan [r] announced his federal budget proposal this morning-a plan which would weaken Medicare by shifting the cost of care to seniors instead of insurance companies…”

Yes, please keep grabbing those third rails.  

It must all depend on when when is.

American Bridge 21st Century PAC issued a new video about U.S. Senate candidate John Brunner (r):

John Brunner (r): I’ve been a leader my whole life as a manufacturer and a job creator.

[Job creator?]

[buzzer]

Television News Anchor: A St. Louis area business formerly run by U.S. Senate candidate John Brunner is laying off some employees.

[static]

Television News Anchor #2:….a Republican U.S. Senate candidate, John Brunner, is laying off some of its employees.

[static]

Television News Anchor:….human resources director confirms the company is laying off workers but isn’t saying how many.

[static]

John Brunner (r): I’ve been a leader my whole life.

[As a job cutter.]

[buzzer]

[static]

[American Bridge 21st Century

americanbridgepac.org

@american_bridge]

And a press release from the Missouri Democratic Party:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 20, 2012

[….]

Out of Touch: Brunner’s New Ad Ignores Vi-Jon Lay-Offs

Ad Shot on Vi-Jon’s Factory Floor, Brunner Took $400,000 Salary While Laying Off Dozens of Missouri Workers

Jefferson City, Mo.-Just days after revealing he doesn’t know the minimum wage, John Brunner further underscored how out of touch he is by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on another misleading ad today, shot on the same factory floor where Brunner recently laid off dozens of Missouri workers while taking nearly $400,000 in salary.

“Just when you thought John Brunner couldn’t be more out of touch, he opens his mouth and says something even more offensive. John Brunner filmed another misleading ad on the same factory floor where he just laid off dozens of workers while taking a $400,000 salary,” said Caitlin Legacki, Missouri Democratic Party spokeswoman. “A real ‘citizen Senator’ would understand this ad is an insult to the men and women recently laid-off at Vi-Jon, but I guess that goes to show John Brunner is just too out of touch. You really have to wonder how many jobs could have been saved at Vi-Jon with the $1.1 million John Brunner’s spent on misleading attack ads.”

On Friday, Brunner told KMOX radio host Charlie Brennan he doesn’t know the current minimum wage, but does think it’s too high. Brunner, worth more than $100 million, has spent at least $2 million of his own money on this campaign, including $1.1 million in attack ads….

Ouch.

Brunner’s Business Record Under Scrutiny

By Sean Sullivan

October 27, 2011 | 5:32 PM

Once your campaign website dubs you “John the Job Creator,” the optics of your own company announcing a round of layoffs are not good….

….Brunner’s spokesman told the paper that the layoffs reflect the poor business atmosphere caused by over-regulation and too many taxes.

“….Brunner’s spokesman told the paper that the layoffs reflect the poor business atmosphere caused by over-regulation and too many taxes.”

Hmm. In a low tax state, no less. Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding a negative tax.

Ouch.

Previously: At a bare minimum…or not (March 16, 2012)

What are the chances of passage? Slim to none. And that’s being optimistic.

Members of the Democratic minority in the House filed HB 1939, an ethics reform bill, yesterday:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1939

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES JONES (63) (Sponsor), TALBOY, HUMMEL, ELLINGER, MAY, SWINGER, SHIVELY, TAYLOR, McCREERY, SCHUPP, McMANUS, OXFORD, McNEIL, PIERSON, NEWMAN, KIRKTON, NICHOLS, MORGAN, CASEY, McGEOGHEGAN, QUINN, HARRIS, KRATKY, SIFTON, CARLSON, McDONALD, SCHIEFFER, WALTON GRAY, STILL, WEBB, RIZZO, PACE, WEBBER, CONWAY (27), COLONA, NASHEED, BLACK, LAMPE, SWEARINGEN, FALLERT, MEADOWS, ANDERS, KELLY (24), BROWN (50), SPRENG, ATKINS, HOLSMAN AND CARTER (Co-sponsors)….

Among the provisions:

….8.925. No solicitation of expenditures, as defined in section 130.011, or fund-raising activities or fund-raising event, as defined in section 130.011, supporting or opposing any candidate, ballot measure, political party, or political party committee shall occur on any property or in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision, unless the property or building is routinely used by and made available for rent or for a fee to all members of the public by the state or the political subdivision.….

[emphasis in original]

Working as a paid political consultant or lobbyist while in the General Assembly would be out:

….3. No member of the general assembly shall accept or receive compensation of any kind as a paid political consultant for another member of the general assembly, the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, or state auditor, or for any campaign committee, candidate committee, continuing committee, exploratory committee, or political party committee as defined in chapter 130, nor shall any spouse, dependent child, or parent accept or receive compensation of any kind on behalf of a member of the general assembly who acts as a paid political consultant.

           4. No member of the general assembly shall act, serve, or register as a legislative lobbyist as defined in section 105.470 until after the first regular session of the Missouri general assembly following the conclusion of the Missouri general assembly in which the member last served.

           5. No individual or business entity shall solicit a member of the general assembly to become employed by that individual or business entity as a legislative lobbyist, as such term is defined in section 150.470, or a paid political consultant, while such member is holding office as a member of the general assembly. No member of the general assembly shall solicit clients to represent as a legislative lobbyist.

           6. Neither the governor nor any person acting on behalf of the governor shall make any offer or promise to confer an appointment to any board, commission, committee, council, county office, department directorship, fee office under section 136.055, judgeship, or any other position, to any member of the general assembly in exchange for the member’s official vote on any public matter. Any person making such offer or promise is guilty of the crime of bribery of a public servant under section 576.010.

           7. Any member of the general assembly who accepts or agrees to accept an offer or promise to confer an appointment to any board, commission, committee, council, county office, department directorship, fee office under section 136.055, judgeship, or any other position, from the governor or any person acting on behalf of the governor in exchange for the member’s official vote on any public matter, is guilty of the crime of acceding to corruption under section 576.020.

           105.465. Notwithstanding section 105.478, any person who intentionally offers or accepts any item, service, or thing of value, including a contribution as defined in section 130.011, to any elected or appointed official or employee of the state or any political subdivision in direct exchange for voting in favor of, voting against, or engaging in any legislative, executive, or judicial course of action designed to benefit, delay, or hinder the passage or failure of any specific state legislation, rule, or regulation, or any specific local legislation, order, ordinance, rule, or regulation, shall be guilty of a class D felony….

[emphasis in original]

Solicitation to become a lobbyist by others would be out, too. Trading votes for future employment or appointment would be out.

Uh, you’ve got to hope that these provisions just make things more explicit.

There would be a $1,000.00 limit of cumulative lobbyist expenditures per member of the General Assembly (and their families and staff):

….105.479. 1. No member of the general assembly or the member’s staff, employees, spouse, or dependent child shall accept or receive cumulative expenditures from lobbyists in excess of one thousand dollars per calendar year per member, including expenditures to the member’s staff, employees, spouse, or dependent child, as expenditure is defined in subdivision (3) of section 105.470, but excluding any expenditure as described in paragraph (d) of subdivision (2) of subsection 3 of section 105.473. If the report provided to a member of the general assembly under subsection 12 of section 105.473 indicates that the member has exceeded the limit established in this section, the member shall have sixty days from the first day of the next calendar month after receipt of the report to reimburse the amount that exceeds the limit to the lobbyist or lobbyists that made the expenditures….

[emphasis in original]

The bill would give the Ethics Commission more investigative tools and powers.

The following would be added to the list of election offenses:

….(12) Giving, lending, agreeing to give or lend, offering, promising, or endeavoring to procure any money or valuable consideration with the intent of inducing any person to run for any such office in this state if the person has a name that is identical or similar to another candidate for the same elective public office and would not otherwise run for elective public office but for the inducement. Campaign donations made in accordance with the laws of this state shall not be construed to be an inducement to run for elective public office under this subdivision….

[emphasis in original]

John Doe, meet John Doe and John Doe.

The bill restricts transfer of funds from committee to committee.

And, the bill imposes campaign contribution limits:

….130.032. 1. In addition to the limitations imposed under section 130.031, the amount of contributions made by or accepted from any person other than the candidate in any one election shall not exceed the following:

           (1) To elect an individual to the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, or attorney general, five thousand dollars;

           (2) To elect an individual to the office of state senator or state representative, five thousand dollars;

           (3) To elect an individual to any other office, including judicial office, five thousand dollars.

           2. Contributions from persons under fourteen years of age shall be considered made by the parents or guardians of such person and shall be attributed toward any contribution limits prescribed in this chapter. Where the contributor under fourteen years of age has two custodial parents or guardians, fifty percent of t
he contribution shall be attributed to each parent or guardian, and where such contributor has one custodial parent or guardian, all such contributions shall be attributed to the custodial parent or guardian….

[emphasis in original]

Section B. The provisions of section A of this act shall become effective on January 1, 2013.

Not a moment too soon. But will it have any chance of passage? See above.