Organized labor has a thing or to to say to Governor Jay Nixon in support of a veto of HB 749:

The Greater Kansas City AFL-CIO is urging Governor Nixon to veto Senate Bill 749,

an attack on the rights of American workers.

Organized labor has struggled to extend and maintain workers’ rights, by fighting against many intrusive forms of legislation. One such piece of legislation, S.B. 749 is a violation of every American’s right to decide their health care. It gives employers the unchecked ability to force their own religious beliefs upon their employees. America was built on the idea that people can go to different places on Sunday, but come together on Monday. This principle has given us the freest and most productive economy in the world. Under S.B. 749, employees must check their religious freedom at the workplace door, and take their bosses’ religious beliefs home at the end of the day.

Passing this piece of legislation has seriously negative implications, which will lower the quality of life for Missouri. An employer who manages thousands of workers may refuse to cover the basic, sensible procedures, even when most or all of the employees’ religious views permit these procedures. An employer can impose one religion on all employees. This logic taken to extreme would allow employers to restrict any medical procedure. For instance, it is against the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept blood transfusions, and it is against the beliefs of the Church of Christ, Scientists to seek out any medical professional, using prayer as their only medicine. How would you like to have your boss tell you that they only provide prayers for your child in that case of serious illness or injury?

S.B. 749 also poses an internal conflict with other dumb legislation. For instance, House Bill 708 (anti-Sharia law) proposed this past session, would ban the application of any foreign law that does not provide identical protections to domestic law. S.B. 749 now provides governmental protection to foreign religious law in Missouri workplaces. This is not the direction we should be headed, and vetoing S.B. 749 is the only feasible solution. After all, neither the Catholic catechism nor Muslim sharia was created on American soil.

Using an employer’s religious convictions as a lens to establish health care coverage for employees is unquestionably dangerous, and illegal.  Once started on this path to restrict reproductive coverage, we will see an upsurge of employers using this law against medical coverage of any kind for their employees. Regardless of your personal beliefs about the issue of contraception and abortion, it comes down to protecting workers’ rights in our workplaces. What is done with the coverage thereafter is to each their own personal decision, but to be able to make that decision is strictly an American right. This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It threatens the religious freedoms of every Missouri employee. We urge the Governor to veto S.B. 749.

Sincerely,

Patrick A. Dujakovich

President, Greater Kansas City AFL-CIO

Yes, there’s a certain lack of ironic awareness when the republican majority in the General Assembly uses government to impose one individual’s religious belief system on others. Nah, with them it’s a feature, not a bug.

We were apprised of the following from an e-mail this morning:

…For nearly a decade, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many of you while covering politics and local government for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Today, I’d like to share with you an exciting new venture.

Effective immediately, I’m leaving the newspaper to form Shield Political Research, which will offer a fresh and innovative approach to opposition research for candidates and campaigns around the country.

[….]

Jake Wagman

Does this reorder the food chain? Just asking.

On Tuesday evening we had the opportunity to speak briefly with Patty Johnson (D), the Democratic Party candidate in the 56th Legislative District:

Video by Jerry Schmidt.

Show Me Progress: I’m Michael Bersin with Show Me Progress and I’m speaking with Patty Johnson who’s a Democratic candidate in the 56th Legislative District.

What brought you to running for office?

Patty Johnson: I decided to run for office because it, uh, the things that are going on in Jefferson City I don’t believe are representative of the people of the State of Missouri. Um, there’s not been much accomplished by the legislature in Jefferson City. I feel that there are serious issues that need to be addressed and those are not being met by our current legislature.    

Show Me Progress: Uh, what are those issues that you’re hearing from voters in your district, uh, what are the concerns that you’re hearing from them?

Patty Johnson: People are still very concerned about the economy, about jobs, uh, about education and particularly about, uh, women’s health issues. I’m hearing a lot of those concerns from the people in the 56th District

Show Me Progress: Now, as you’ve been talking to people they’ve been pretty receptive to what you’re talking about, to some of the solutions?

Patty Johnson: Yes, I believe they have been.

Show Me Progress: All right, well, thank you very much for your time.

Patty Johnson: Thank you, Michael.  

Patty Johnson (D) at a parade in Belton, Missouri on Saturday, June 16, 2012.

Retail politics.

The Associated Press reported today that Missouri GOP gubernatorial contender Dave Spence had to repay part of a grant he had received from the state of New York. The grant was associated with a plastics business he acquired in that state. It seems that Spence, who is running on his record as a job-creating businessman, failed to meet the job creation targets upon which the grant was contingent.

Embarrassing, sure; surprising, not especially. Businesses succeed and fail for a number of reasons. It does, of course, undermine Spence’s job-creator chops, the single qualification he presents to persuade us he deserves to be elected governor of Missouri. As the AP put it, “Spence was not able to create jobs in New York.” Of course, success in business is, on its own, at least, a pretty weak qualification for a political career since government’s goals and methods are much broader than that of for-profit business.

What especially struck me, though, was one statement from the Democratic Party response:

A party spokesman pointed to various speeches in which Spence has said he doesn’t like “corporate welfare” and believes businesses should have to repay government incentives if they don’t follow through on their job-creation agreements.

The Democrats are on to something, but seem not to have a very firm grasp of all the implications. My question is if Spence doesn’t like “corporate welfare” what’s he doing accepting government subsidies under any circumstances?  Whether or not he created jobs with corporate welfare government money is irrelevant.

If memory serves me, Spence got Alpha Packaging, his big Missouri business success, going strong thanks to a Small Business Administration Loan, and then, of course, there’s his  support for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)  – he sat on the board of a bank that took TARP money and then defaulted. Seems to me that Mr. Spence has been more than happy to take advantage of corporate welfare. You could even say he owes much of his success to just that particular form of government largesse.

But when it comes to government looking out for the folks who occupy those jobs he claims he wants to create, he’s not so generous. He may be willing to accept government help to insure his welfare and to endorse policies that permit government to help businessmen like him, but he wants that same government to leave workers’ welfare to the “free” market, via  right-to-work-for-less legislation and totally abolishing the minimum wage.

Which brings me to a simple question that Mr. Spence’s many trips to the government trough suggests: Why isn’t what’s good for the goose, good for the gander? If government subsidies help businessmen like Spence “create” jobs, why isn’t government oversight to guarantee a fair share of the proceeds for the workers just as good? There might not be any proceeds, after all, if weren’t for our tax money – including those of union and minimum wage folks. Why should we subsidize a “free” market that offers us slave wages?

And, lest you be misled by Mr. Spence’s claim that unions and minimum wage requirements are what made it impossible for him to succeed in New York, bear in mind that as recently as 2011, New York led the nation in job creation and is ranked third in job growth by Kiplinger this year.

On Tuesday evening we had the opportunity to speak briefly with Jim White (D), the Democratic Party candidate in the 55th Legislative District:

Video by Jerry Schmidt.

Show Me Progress: I’m Michael Bersin with Show Me Progress and I’m speaking with Jim White who is a candidate, a Democratic candidate in the 55th Legislative District.

What brought you to running for office?

Jim White (D): Well, like everybody else I’m really getting tired of hearing, uh, the Missouri legislature being a, uh, tag line on Stephen Colbert or someplace else. We’ve had a long time where not much has gotten done. People seem unable to work with other people. I’m not a politician, this is the first time running for office, and I would like to be a part of trying to get things done for the citizens of this district and the state, uh, any way I can.

Show Me Progress: As you talk to voters in this district what are you hearing from them?    

Jim White (D): I think that the concerns that they have are the concerns that people have all over. They’re concerned about the economy, of course, about their jobs, about women’s rights, about voting rights, uh, and about nothing getting done in Jefferson City to deal with those, and particularly, also education. We need to really put the emphasis in this state on education.

Show Me Progress: So, you’re hearing a lot of frustration on their part about what’s going on in Jefferson City.

Jim White (D): Uh, what’s not going on in Jefferson City is the frustrating part. Uh, the things that get dealt with aren’t things that are important to anybody, it’s the don’t say gay and that sort of business which is nonsensical.

Show Me Progress: Well, thank you very much for your time.

Jim White (D): You’re welcome. Thank you, Michael.

Jim White (D) at a parade in Belton, Missouri on Saturday, June 16, 2012.

A republican gubernatorial candidate wrote his campaign a really big check and it’s not Dave or Bill.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121244 06/21/2012 FRED SAUER GOVERNOR Fred Sauer 454 Hammersmith Road St Louis MO 63141 Orion Investment Company 6/21/2012 $100,000.00

[emphasis added]

…if you have a lot of money. It just feels, you know, so grassrootsie. Not.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission, someone threw Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r) a mercy contribution:

C091145 06/21/2012 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER Fred Weber Inc 2320 Creve Coeur Mill Rd Maryland Heights MO 63043 6/21/2012 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

That could buy some really nice deck chairs. Just in time to rearrange them, too.

Video by Jerry Schmidt

A new ad from the Obama 2012 campaign which will air in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia:

Announcer: The son of a single mom. Proud father of two daughters. President Obama knows that women being paid seventy-seven cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men isn’t just unfair, it hurts families.

So the first law he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help ensure that women are paid the same as men for doing the exact same work. Because President Obama knows that fairness for women means a stronger middle class for America.

President Barack Obama (D): I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.

Yep. Can you say: “There’s gonna be a huge gender gap in November”?

Given Claire McCaskill’s past behavior in regard to coal and the EPA, who’d have thought she’d come out on the side of the angels when the Senate voted on GOP legislation designed to block new regulations of toxic emissions from coal fired plants. Thanks to McCaskill and her like-minded colleagues, millions of Americans are less apt to die prematurely of asthma or other respiratory deiseases, cancer, and heart disease.

True, McCaskill is proposing to delay the implementation of the regulations in order to give the coal industry more time to comply. Nevertheless, in this case, her honesty about what is at stake is a world away from the nonsense coming from her GOP opposite numbers in Missouri.

Where McCaskill, right or wrong, retains some individual flexibility, her senate colleague from Missouri, Roy Blunt, is a lock-step GOP soldier. Blunt, who predictably voted to block the more stringent standards, is well-programmed when it comes to fighting “job-killing” regulations on politically friendly industries. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Blunt cited studies estimating a $10 billion cost for industries across the country to comply with the rule. He argued that it presents an undue burden on states like Missouri that rely heavily on coal to generate electricity.

Analysis (pdf) provided by the Congressional Research Service, however, suggests that industry assessments that inform Blunt’s cost numbers are inflated:

EEI, NERC, and other recent reports describe scenarios and potential impacts of EPA rules, including projected need for additional power plant capacity or potential reliability problems, that depend on a number of assumptions such as the stringency of the rules or expected tight compliance deadlines, many of which differ greatly from what EPA has actually proposed or promulgated. Also, because most of the reports try to look collectively at EPA rules, to the extent a proposed or promulgated rule differs from some of these assumptions, it can be difficult to separate out one rule’s projected impacts from the report’s overall conclusions about multiple rules

So once again, Blunt’s dire pronouncements about job losses are basically empty.

Nor does does Blunt seem to be aware of – or at least willing to mention – the report published by Earth Justice, the American Lung Association, and Clean Air Task Force, which asserts that the new regulations will give us $281 billion a year in health care savings. As far as I’m concerned, 281 of anything trumps 10 of anything, anytime – but particularly when the money saved is also associated with the prevention of as many as 35,700 premature deaths a year.

As for McCaskill’s wannabe November opponents , John Brunner is on the record that he’d repeal “job-killing” EPA regulations. Apart, however, from affirming his Republican orthodoxy, he doesn’t seem to have anything more substantive to say.

Sarah Steelman, however, never fails to delight lovers of the ridiculous. She doesn’t think that the actual, trained scientists at the EPA are up to snuff, commenting that their data is “debatable or inherently flawed.” So there you have it from Sarah Steelman, environmental scientist. The only thing sillier were the comments from Steelman’s other alter ego, the motivational psychiatrist, who remarked that

I believe that much of the environmentalists’ agenda has little to do with preserving nature and wildlife, and is actually more directed at regulating businesses and inhibiting economic growth.

Because scientists just inherently love inhibiting economic growth. Note also how the issue becomes “preserving nature and wildlife” with no mention of human life, which is what is actually at stake with the new EPA regulations? Steelman’s got that GOP talent for misdirection down pat.

The real winner, though, is Rep. Todd Akin. While Akin is most likely capable of knee-jerk opposition to just about any regulation imposed on the corporate bastions of “market freedom,” he is, when it comes to the EPA, probably more concerned right now with those pesky EPA spy drones that have been flying over Missouri agricultural operations, which, as he informed the EPA’s Lisa Jackson in a recent letter, are “deeply troubling.”