• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: April 2013

Campaign Finance: pay the piper, call the tune

26 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, missouri, Missouri Ethic Commission, purity, republicans

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091068 04/25/2013 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE INC Citizens For Timothy W. Jones PO Box 434 Eureka MO 63025 4/23/2013 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

Very interesting:

Two House Republicans pulled from committee over education reform clash

Two House Republicans have been pulled from a committee because of their votes blocking education reform legislation.

Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones said he removed Rep. Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg and Rep. Jeff Messenger of Republic from the House Fiscal Oversight Committee because they voted on policy, rather than the fiscal analysis, of legislation that would create a new educator evaluation system and change teacher tenure….

Is some of that HRCC money going to fund a primary in the 54th House District in 2014? Just asking.

Yeah, right, Representative Denny Hoskins (r), friend of public school teachers:

Say it ain’t so (July 19, 2012)

….Maybe it’s eleventh dimensional chess and Missouri NEA has concocted an e-vile plot to neutralize future republican attacks on public sector organized labor by bestowing their endorsement upon them.

Somehow that doesn’t seem like a workable plan….

When the elephants fight it is the grass which gets trampled.

Like this is going end well for public education? I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Campaign Finance: maybe all that crazy talk is making them think twice

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, Democrats, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, republicans

Maybe.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C000960 04/24/2013 MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE Enterprise Holdings INC PAC 600 Corporate Park Dr St Louis MO 63105 4/24/2013 $20,000.00

[emphasis added]

In the past:

C000953 02/22/2012 MO REPUBLICAN PARTY Enterprise Holdings Inc. PAC 600 Corporate Park Drive Saint Louis MO 63105 2/20/2012 $10,000.00

C091068 08/10/2012 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE INC Enterprise Holdings Inc PAC 600 Corporate Park Dr St Louis MO 63105 8/9/2012 $10,000.00

C000953 09/28/2012 MO REPUBLICAN PARTY Enterprise Holdings Inc. Political Action Committee 600 Corporate Park Drive Saint Louis MO 63105 9/28/2012 $50,000.00

C000960 10/05/2012 MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE Enterprise Holdings, Inc PAC 600 Corporate Park Dr St Louis MO 63105 10/5/2012 $15,000.00

C000824 01/14/2013 CIVIC PROGRESS ACTION COMMITTEE Enterprise Holdings, Inc. PAC 600 Corporate Park Drive Saint Louis MO 63105 1/14/2013 $50,000.00

[emphasis added]

Is this a change in direction? Just asking

HB 421: important things first

24 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

gold, HB 421, missouri, Paul Curtman, right wingnut

At least to Glenn Beck.

Previously:

HB 421: channeling the Specie Circular (February 5, 2013)

Today the Missouri House is dealing with HB 421, which extends a tax break to gold and silver speculators. I kid you not.

Via Twitter:

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich

Your MO House is talking about gold and silver because Freedom. #moleg 2:33 PM – 24 Apr 13

Cathy Sherwin ‏@cathysherwin

Thank goodness #moleg is covering important biz today like giving tax breaks to folks hoarding gold. 2:35 PM – 24 Apr 13

Cathy Sherwin ‏@cathysherwin

Somebody give #moleg a gold star already. 2:45 PM – 24 Apr 13

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich

When civilization ends and we have to buy smokes with gold coins, we’ll regret making fun of @PaulCurtman. #moleg 2:45 PM – 24 Apr 13

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

@ssnich It’s obviously a strategic move against wallet and purse manufacturers by supporters of the portable ingot cart cartels. 2:59 PM – 24 Apr 13

Believe it.

Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!

24 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Balloon Juice, Chris Koster, Claire McCaskill, Clint Zweifel, Jason Kander, Jay Nixon, missouri

From mistermix at Balloon Juice:

….Democrats are so terrible at political branding that if they were giving away gold they’d call it “shit”….

You know who you are.

Campaign Finance: pocket change

24 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2014, 2016, campaign finance, governor, missouri, State Auditor, Tom Schweich

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111150 04/23/2013 FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH James McDonnell III 40 Glen Eagles Drive St Louis MO 63124 Retired 4/22/2013 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Gee, $10,000.00 is such a popular amount.

The television ads can’t start a moment too soon. Heh.

Previously:

State Auditor Tom Schweich (r): having friends with really fat check books… (August 16, 2011)

You don’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel or electrons by the terabyte (August 30, 2011)

Campaign Finance: catch me if you can (March 27, 2013)

Campaign Finance: catch me if you can – part 2 (March 31, 2013)

Campaign Finance: catch me if you can – part 3 (April 7, 2013)

Keeping up with the Koster (April 10, 2013)

Campaign Finance: hard currency (April 11, 2013)

Campaign Finance: very interesting (April 16, 2013)

The sequester chickens are coming home to roost and the folks who let ’em out are all in a tizzy

24 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

air trafic controllers, Ann Wagner, budget policy, Essential Services Act of 2013, FAA, missouri, Roy Blunt, sequester, spending cuts, White House tours

Greg Sargent writes today:

The Republican strategy on sequestration has been clear for months now: sequestration is terrific because spending cuts are good…and every specific program cut by sequestration is a terrible injustice that Barack Obama should have avoided.

Many of Missouri’s Republican political contingent, folks like new-minted Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2), who were adamantly unwilling to entertain meaningful compromise when the sequester was still a gleam in the Tea Party’s eye, and who strutted around demanding spending cuts and no, never, under any circumstances, new revenue, are, now that they’ve got their cuts, trying to confuse the issue by talking about “Obama’s sequester.”  GOPers are also jumping on specific unpopular and damaging cuts – first they wept about curtailing White House tours and now they’re rending their hair about the furlough of large numbers of air traffic controllers. They want us to believe that they they’re blameless and if the Obama administration only cared enough or were smart enough they’d cut something else instead. But guess what? President Obama is powerless to pick and choose what to cut:

What is happening now is what the law requires, nothing less and nothing more. The president has no choice but to follow it.

Here’s what the laws and the technical analyses say. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 897 non-defense “budget accounts” — and the thousands of “programs, payments and activities” within them — shall be cut by the “same percentage.”

That hasn’t stopped our GOP pols from pretending that it was or is all avoidable. Ann Wagner, for instance, wants us to know that she “offered solutions to replace his [i.e. Obama’s] sequester with responsible cuts and reforms” – which, Wagner being such a reasonable member of the extreme right wing, otherwise known as the GOP, were surely ignored out of pure willfulness, don’t you think?

Another Missouri GOPer, Senator Roy Blunt, has been far cagier. He wants President Obama to really own these Republican spending cuts because, once they go into effect, nobody but nobody is going to like them:

Last week, Blunt introduced the “Essential Services Act of 2013,” which would protect American jobs and public safety by ensuring “essential” federal employees like air traffic controllers continue to provide vital services. The bill, which Senate Democrats blocked as an amendment to the continuing resolution (CR) last month, would give the Obama Administration the flexibility it claims it does not have to apply the same standards used during occurrences of inclement weather or other government shutdowns to the sequestration cuts to each agency.

This effort by Blunt and Wagner to trick us into thinking that that if it weren’t for President Obama and his  Democratic minions we could have our budget cake and eat just as well as we always have is just downright silly. As Sargent notes:

… It may be true that no one specifically wants to shut down air traffic control, or the FBI, or food inspections, or the military … but once you start really looking at that list, what you find is that the level of cuts involved mean that something that “nobody” wants to cut will in fact have to be cut.

The truth is that sequestration cuts – which are significant enough already – already represent significantly lower levels of cutting spending than what House Republicans wanted. Some Tea Partiers in the House voted against them because they were not severe enough. And don’t forget: the budgets that Republicans have been voting for, year after year, promise to entirely wipe out non-defense discretionary spending over the long term. All of it.

Now, it’s true that if you ask Republicans whether they support this cut or that cut, at least the ones that affect their supporters, they’ll claim that, no, they only want to do away with waste, fraud, abuse, and foreign aid. But that’s not what their budgets say. It’s not what their rhetoric says, either.

I believe that almost every one of our Missouri GOP House members voted for that GOP budget that would, as Sargent correctly notes, “wipe out non-defense discretionary spending over the long term. All of it.” I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of hearing them squawk now that the chickens they enabled are on their way to Missouri. Is it too much to ask these charlatans to stand up and take responsibility for what they’ve done – not to mention what they’re still trying to do?

Who needs to drive if we’re all going back to the Nineteenth Century anyway?

23 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, missouri, paranoia, right wingnuts

Just asking.

Via Twitter:

caitlin legacki ‏@caitleg

This is a real headline: “DMV could immediately halt issuing Missouri drivers licenses.” #moleg http://bit.ly/Y1FocP 10:11 AM – 23 Apr 13

Mo. Senate votes to cut money for license bureau

….Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer acknowledges the funding cut would halt the issuance of driver’s licenses. But Schaefer said he hopes the proposed cut prompts licensing officials to be more responsive to lawmakers….

Because right wingnut paranoia should be indulged at all times.

There’ll be no need to drive when we finally arrive at their Nineteenth Century paradise. Besides, we can all take the train. Oh, wait…

Cognitive Dissonance

23 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bumper sticker, missouri, Romney

This evening, in eastern Jackson County:

Which is it, the 47% or the 1%? Just asking.

Image

Cheney the Interrogator

21 Sunday Apr 2013

Tags

Barack Obama, Boston Marathon Bombing, Cartoons of Barack Obama, Cartoons of Dick Cheney, Dick Cheney, Enhanced Interrogation, Homeland Security, Political Cartoons, Terrorism, war on terror

Posted by Michael Bersin | Filed under Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

SB 437: why we can’t have nice things

21 Sunday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

budget, David Pearce, higher education, missouri, SB 437, taxes

A little over five years ago:

Chris Koster in Independence, MO (March 30, 2008)

…In 2001 general revenue to higher education in the state of Missouri was nine hundred and sixty million dollars. 2001. In 2008. We’re now in the 2008 budget cycle, general revenue to higher education in the state of Missouri is nine hundred and thirty six million dollars. A reduction of twenty four million dollars despite the fact that we’ve gone forward by seven years. We fell back in nominal terms, nominal dollar terms by twenty four million dollars. In real dollar terms, which mean you put, you pump a higher ed inflator through there which is about, I dunno, say eight percent, um, we are seven hundred and twenty five million dollars behind where we were in 2001 in higher education.

The reality is, I mean, we can pretend it’s otherwise, but Missouri is the 46th lowest taxing state in the country. We are never going to catch up to the high water mark that Bob Holden hit in 2001. It’s just never gonna happen. We can try. And we should try. But it’s never gonna happen. I mean, it’s, once you fall behind by a billion dollars in a twenty billion dollar budget, we can all pretend it can happen, but it can’t happen.

Let me give you one other statistic. Because this is so fascinating, hardly anybody really recognizes this about the state budget. We take in two hundred seventy million dollars more each year then we did the last year. So, know you start to understand the consequences of falling a billion dollars behind. We only take in two hundred seventy million dollars more this year then we did last year. Of that two hundred and seventy million dollars, two hundred and forty million is immediately taken up by mandates. That means inflation in pharmaceuticals, inflation in Medicaid, the heating costs that it keeps, that it takes to warm the Capitol during the winter. Two hundred and forty of the two hundred and seventy is immediately gone. That means in any given year we’ve got about thirty million dollars in discretionary money to change the course of history with. Now you understand the consequences of falling a billion dollars behind in just the higher education budget, much less the k-12 budget. When you’ve only got thirty million dollars how can we ever catch up in higher education? Of the thirty million dollars we only, this year in tax credits to wealthy corporations we will give away something like sixty million dollars. So every single penny that did not go to inflation went to big business. Every single penny of it….

The republican way is perpetual austerity for the 99%. God forbid that corporations and the top 1% ever have to think about the public good and invest in, you know, civilization. Revenue is always out for republicans. Because why should Mississippi be last when Missouri could occupy that space? Just asking.

Senator David Pearce (r-21) at the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors meeting on campus in Warrensburg on April 19, 2013.

On Friday morning Senator David Pearce (r-21) spoke on SB 437, a bill which he sponsored, at the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors meeting on campus in Warrensburg. The bill, in its present form, reallocates the fixed funding pie toward community colleges and (as near as we can tell) the University of Missouri system and away from the remaining four year institutions in the state. The 21st Senate District includes the University of Central Missouri, one of the four year institutions adversely affected by this bill.

Senator David Pearce (r-21): [….]

And, uh, first up, Senate Bill 437. And that’s a bill that, that I’m sponsoring. Um, it’s one that has, uh, received quite a bit of discussion and I will say, some controversy. Senate Bill 437, uh, basically creates a distribution model for higher education funding. It’s taken the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Education and tried to come up with a long range funding formula for higher education. Um, it’s, this bill is number two on the Senate calendar, on the perfection calendar. And, hope to get to it on Tuesday or Wednesday and have a, a good discussion on that.

Um, I was just on the radio and I, and I said that, uh, in higher education we have limped along for decades because when it comes to funding it’s across the board increase or across the board decrease, regardless of how well your university is doing. We have thirteen unique institutions and we can do better. And, uh, Senate Bill 437 tries to create a, a model for that. Let me just give you one example of something that happened in our appropriations committee this week, which I did not like, which, I think, explains why we need a formula. We were going through the appropriations process and a, a senator, a colleague, a friend of mine, uh, put an amendment for one point three million dollars for Missouri State. Out of the blue. And, um, we had somewhat agreed among ourselves that we would just take the recommendations and, and move from there. And so, that’s the way funding has been in higher ed for decades. It’s who’s got the political strength, who’s at the table, universities fighting against each other. And that’s the wrong way to fund higher education. So that was a perfect example of why we need a formula. Because I don’t want to be put in the unenviable position of being chairman of the Senate Education Committee and have to fight against Missouri State on the floor. That doesn’t do anybody any good. And so, if we can come up with a found, uh, uh, funding formula that, uh, treats all the universities the same based on performance I think that’s the way to go.

Uh, right now we have, uh, complete support from the community colleges, uh, but we’re having some trouble from the four years. And, uh, I have tasked the, the presidents of the university to give me some language by the end of today, amendments that they can live with, the ways that they want to see the bill change as it goes through the process so we’ll be ready to discuss it next week.

So that’s, that’s a tough bill. Um, but yet we’re gonna go forward and we’re gonna get [inaudible] and I’d love to see it pass the Senate this, this week and head on over to the House.

[….]

Um, obviously, uh, if you’ve been in my office you’ve seen my shrine to UCM. Uh, so it’s UCM and others, but it’s also important, in my capacity that, that  I look at statewide implications as well. Because, uh, higher education is important for the entire state. So, with that I’d be glad to take any questions you might have.

University of Central Missouri Board of Governors President Marvin Wright.

University of Central Missouri Board President Marvin Wright: Senator, we, uh, you know, as a board, appreciate everything that you do and attempt to do for the University of Central Missouri. It, uh, is in your district and, and, uh, I know we lean on you from time to time for assistance and help. And we appreciate, uh, the assistance that we do get, and also from Denny in the House.

Uh, the current status, I was glad to hear you say that you’ve requested some amendments.

Senator Pearce (r): Um, hm.

Marvin Wright: And I have no idea what those amendments are going to be.  Uh, I, I do know that, that the, the board is, is concerned. Uh, and the unknown always bothers everybody, you know. And we’re no different, no matter how old we are. We never get used to it, unknown. But, the, the one, one of the points in the, in the legislation, uh, is with respect to the, the percentages of the monies that are going to community colleges as opposed to four year institutions. And as I understand it, uh, the community colleges, uh, stand to gain some fourteen percent, uh, in appropriations. And that obviously means there has to be reduction. That reduction is in four year institutions. And that four year institutions would include the University of Central Missouri. And, you know, I, I would like to know how, how do you view this as being of assistance to the University of Central Missouri? Because, obviously, we’re part of the State of Missouri and part of the higher education,  and, uh, being going through a process, our faculty, staff and everybody else of budget reductions, that type of thing. And, uh, this bothers us, uh, this reduction. And, and I, I’d like to know what about that is something that, that, that we as a board could feel comfortable with?

Senator Pearce (r): It’s a work in progress. And, um, when we first proposed the bill we put in language to deduct half of the local contribution for community colleges. So, we basically were reducing their local effort. Obviously, their, their operating levies for the community colleges. I mean, community colleges do have another funding source that four years don’t. And so, what we tried to do was to, uh, cut that in half so there wouldn’t be a, a wide swing in overall contributions from community colleges to four years.

Um, I’ll be honest, uh, community colleges have probably more political input and more grassroots support in the legislature than four years do. Um, and that was something that community colleges felt that they could not live with, not necessarily because it gave them more money, but because they felt that if we deducted half the local match that they could never, ever have another operating levy increase. Because the local folks would feel that the state was penalizing them for not, um, supporting it and not, uh, taking advantage of the entire local match. And so, that decision was made, uh, in committee, uh, by seven to three vote to, uh, basically not deduct half their match. What that does, it, uh, goes from fifteen percent of the overall pie for community colleges up to twenty percent. Now if I was sitting in front of the State Fair Community College Board of Governors right now they would, they would be thrilled. Because, um, their main talking point is that, uh, they educate forty-two percent of higher education students but yet only get fifteen percent. And so these are very, very tough decisions that we had to, to talk about when it comes to overall funding for higher education.

Marvin Wright: I think you can understand what our concern is.

Senator Pearce (r): Right.

Marvin Wright: Uh, I think this institution and it’s faculty and staff do a tremendous job of educating people.

Senator Pearce (r): And, and.

Marvin Wright: And those who’ve graduated from here, I assume you would agree that it does a fine job of, [Senator Pearce: [laugh]] of educating people.

Senator Pearce (r): Right.

Marvin Wright: And it’s, it’s one that, that frankly, it’s disturbing to us that, uh, these people are tightening their belts around here and yet we’re faced with the fact that, that, uh, there’s going to be a reduction, basically, based on the percentages. And we’re, we’re just at a loss. I understand politics.

Senator Pearce (r): Um, hm.

Marvin Wright: I, that’s a misnomer. I, I’m sorry. I don’t, I don’t understand it. I from time to time pick up a glimpse of what happens in it. And, and this is one of those things that, that obviously I, I think that we would, we would love to see, if you want to give us a chance to smile like the State Fair board is smiling now, uh, for that part of this legislation to some way be modified so that we as an institution realize some benefit from what we’ve been trying to do and what these people have tried to do.

Senator Pearce (r) : Well, there are many benefits for performance funding and there are a lot of disadvantages with the status quo. Um, I don’t feel that that is in the long term best interest of UCM and so, I think going this route is the best route. Uh, and if you’re a university that is excelling and, uh, uh, accomplishing the things that you as a board had set out I don’t think you have a thing to worry about. Uh, and, certainly, I, I, any amendments and things like that that you want to, to have, uh, brought forward we’ll certainly take a look at those. Uh, but we are gonna, uh, debate the bill on the floor next week.

Marvin Wright: Okay. Now you have people you say that are gonna be submitting amendments to you today?

Senator Pearce (r):  Well, um, I’ve had, I visited with, uh, Dr. Troy Paino [president of Truman State University] and he was representing all three universities. And I made it very clear to him that I would like to have amendments, uh, brought to our office by the end of today, uh, on, uh, on how they could make the bill better. You know, to me, it’s very easy to just sit back and say, no, we don’t like it. And, uh, I think we can do better than that. And so, if there are ways that we can do that I’d like to hear that.

Marvin Wright: Well, good. I, I, I do hope that there’s some way that some change can be made which will, you know, acknowledge this institution and, and not put us at a disadvantage.

Senator Pearce (r):  We can see that performance funding, uh, currently in the budget is, is a good thing. I mean, because, obviously, by performance funding the university will be getting more money than if they did just an across the board increase.

Marvin Wright: Anybody else on the board got any questions or observations about? Yes.

University of Central Missouri Board of Governors member Gus Wetzel.

Gus Wetzel: Senator, on this performance funding [inaudible] to me it’s a great idea, it’s a productive idea, it’s a healthy idea. And, of course, we, on this, uh, board and the faculty and, and all the representatives here, we’re committed to it. But, it seems to me you made a statement earlier that, uh, the political, uh, environment pushed the two year schools to be considered on this, and another statement we talk about the political environment of, of another institution that asks for x amount of money to come into the formula for their funding for this year, and that was added. It seems to me that if, if the bill passes that each year the, the non performing schools will go, or the lesser performing schools, or those that are performing that have special needs that are not living up to the criteria of other institutions will have that same political clout that can you come before you and, and the, uh, state, and, uh, you know, if, if their voice is loud enough, it’ll be modified, it’ll go that way.

Senator Pearce (r): Um, hmm. You’re exactly right. Um, currently there are three universities that, um, according to the model are over funded. Um, some of my colleagues think that we should just indiscriminately close two colleges right now. But the political implications won’t allow that to happen. Um, and so, right now, in the bill there is something called a stop loss provision that a university could never receive, um, anything less than ninety-eight percent of their current budget. So, they could, it would never be, uh, like a ten or fifteen or twenty percent decrease in that. But you’re right. I mean, you can never divorce the politics from this process. But I think a, a performance funding helps in that direction.

[….]

Ah, instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, it’s reallocating the deck chairs.  

“…I mean, community colleges do have another funding source that four years don’t. And so, what we tried to do was to, uh, cut that in half so there wouldn’t be a, a wide swing in overall contributions from community colleges to four years…”

Ah, originally, austerity for everyone.

The four year institutions have two revenue sources – state support, which has dropped significantly in the past decade, and student tuition. The General Assembly, in it’s infinite wisdom, created an unsustainable funding stream – they cut state appropriations and effectively removed tuition increases (by statute) as a way to make up for those lost state appropriations. What a great scam! There’s no political pressure on the General Assembly from parents and students to increase state appropriations because tuition increases are taken out of the mix. Problem solved!  

“…Um, and that was something that community colleges felt that they could not live with, not necessarily because it gave them more money, but because they felt that if we deducted half the local match that they could never, ever have another operating levy increase. Because the local folks would feel that the state was penalizing them for not, um, supporting it and not, uh, taking advantage of the entire local match…”

But, republicans have made any possibility of increasing revenue so toxic as a standard of public policy that austerity is the only answer. Problem solved!

“…Because, um, their [community college] main talking point is that, uh, they educate forty-two percent of higher education students but yet only get fifteen percent. And so these are very, very tough decisions that we had to, to talk about when it comes to overall funding for higher education…”

Uh, community colleges provide unaccredited two year degrees, four year institutions provide much more than that. Let’s compare, I dunno, training versus education. There’s a value proposition in there somewhere, right? My God, do these people have enough brains to remember how to breathe? Just asking.

Here’s something really rich in the bill language (Senate Committee Substitute) [pdf] – the “peer state” calculation will be based on per capita personal income:

….the group of ten states comprised of the five states next higher than Missouri and the five states next lower than Missouri, based on rank-ordering of all states according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis based on the 2011 midyear population estimates of the census data for the per capita personal income….

Uh, what happens when Missouri finally arrives at last place? Just asking.

Also in the same version of the bill:

….The joint committee shall submit a written report, with any recommendations for legislative action or action by the coordinating board for higher education, the department of higher education, or the institutions, to the secretary of the senate, the chief clerk of the house of representatives, and the coordinating board for higher education.

Yeah, good luck with that.

“…Because I don’t want to be put in the unenviable position of being chairman of the Senate Education Committee and have to fight against Missouri State on the floor. That doesn’t do anybody any good…”

We thought elections were supposed to have consequences. Evidently not in the 21st Senate District.

“…Um, I’ll be honest, uh, community colleges have probably more political input and more grassroots support in the legislature than four years do…”

Missouri State and community colleges are allowed political influence. Is anyone else?

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Campaign Finance: Oxymoron
  • The weather overnight
  • Johnson County Democrats – Blue Dogs in the Park – Warrensburg, Missouri – May 16, 2026
  • The power of one
  • “…I’m so confused…. if our elections have not been free and fair, how did you get elected??…”

Recent Comments

Uh, in case you were… on Some right wingnuts with money…
Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…

Archives

  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,048,190 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...