Why is it that so many racists, homophobes, misogynists, and other rightwing nincompoops come to ground in Missouri? The latest to break silence is the “conservative icon,” as TPM styles her, Phyllis Schlafly, she of the poisonous Eagle Forum which, in its mission statement, manages to justify use of all the labels I used in my first sentence. Seems Schafly thinks that the the message of the GOP’s 2012 electoral losses does not justify outreach to minorities. In fact, she thinks that what is needed is more outreach to white Americans:

The Hispanics who have come in like this will vote Democrat and there’s not the slightest bit of evidence that they will vote Republican,” Schlafly said on “Focus Today.” “And the people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes, the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election and there are millions of them.”

Schlafly told PolicyMic she believes that Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election because “his drop-off from white voters was tremendous” and the GOP doesn’t “know how to relate to grassroots Americans.”

Where to begin? First, one is struck by the fact that the accounts of Schlafly’s pronouncements that I have read so far focus rather narrowly on the fact that she is diverging from the common wisdom that the GOP needs to shift its ground in regard to Latinos before it is swallowed up by demographic change. This response is justified to an extent since Schlafly seems to believe that Latinos and other minorities will always be inclined to regard the GOP and its policies as anathema. It also makes it clear indirectly that to diehards like Schlafly, there’s no room to contemplate tailoring GOP policies to appeal to other than change-averse, mostly elderly white folks.

But there’s something else interesting that’s implied by Schlafly’s contempt for minority outreach. Her Republican Party is, simply put, a white man’s party.  She’s basically affirming what we all knew or suspected all along: the GOP stands for white privilege.

Where Schlafly errs, however, is in her assumption that “whiteness” is somehow monolithic and that it characterizes “grassroots Americans.” Lots of us white folks are just as revolted by the radical social Darwinism, Christian triumphalism, conspiracy-mongering and exclusionary policies of today’s GOP as any minority, and all the outreach in the world wouldn’t bring us into their nasty little fold (nor are all or even a majority of us who hold such views “feeding from the government trough,” as one of my rightwing neighbors puts it, either). Where I grew up, the grassroots came in a variety of colors and represented a wider range of interests and beliefs than today’s GOP, at least as exemplified by the self-identified grass-roots expert, Phyllis Schlafly, is capable of comprehending.

Slightly edited for clarity; spelling of Phyllis Schlafly’s name regularized.  

What’s next, a prosperous future grifting for The Faux News Channel?

Heh.

Is Vicky Hartzler the new Michele Bachmann? (May 29, 2013)

You know how every year you hear somebody say that such-and-such a color is the new black? Well it seems that Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann is such an icon of rightwing goofiness that now that she has announced her intention to retire at the end of her current term, commentators are searching for the new Michele Bachmann. And guess who the first contender to be named is? Missouri’s own Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4), author of Running God’s Way, a guide for rightwing Christians in politics, famous locally as the Tea Party darling and mostly closeted birther who is also the recipient of massive governmental farm subsidies.

Makes sense. the Tea Party queen stands down while one of the possible number one ladies in waiting takes the crown. Charles Pierce, who is leading the hunt for Bachmann’s successor, notes that among the  points in Hartzler’s favor is her intellectual acuity:

Among other things, Ms. Hartzler apparently believes that the heathen Chinee are spying on us through our toasters.

and her courageous stand for religious freedom for the right kind of Christians:

She’d also rather the government not tolerate those “fringe religions” because the First Amendment says that Congress Shall Make No Law Unless Vicky Hartzler Thinks Your God Is Freaky.

I’d say Vicky has a good chance of becoming the new Michele Bachmann, but I want to know if her election would mean that Missouri will become known as the Bermuda Triangle of Crazy? Do you feel proud that we’re first-off in the running for the crazy crown, or what?

ADDENDA: This is one account of the record of achievement that Hartzler has to equal or surpass in order to become the new Bachmann.

*Slightly edited.

You’ve probably read about Roy Blunt’s giveaway to Monsanto – he slipped a last minute rider into totally unrelated legislation, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013, which “compels the USDA to ignore federal court decisions that block the agency’s approvals of new GM crops. The amendment was a rich gift to Monsanto which has been trying to get something like this passed for a long time:

Speedy deregulation of the new-generation herbicide-tolerant crops is important for a simple reason: Monsanto’s blockbuster Roundup Ready technology-featuring corn, soy, cotton, sugar beet, and alfalfa (hay) seeds engineered to resist Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide-is failing. Roundup-resistant superweeds are galloping out of control throughout big-farm country. The industry’s only solution to the problem is to roll out seeds resistant to multiple herbicides at once, adding old, toxic ones like 2,4-D and dicamba to the Roundup mix. […]  the strategy will work brilliantly to sell more herbicides and burnish the bottom lines of the Big 6, but it will only put off a reckoning with the problem of resistant weeds while simultaneously harming the environment.

In an effort to undo Blunt’s chicanery, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkeley tried to amend the Farm Bill last Thursday to repeal Blunt’s “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it is popularly known. The amendment was blocked by GOP Senators led by – guess who? – Roy Blunt, who has been dubbed by Mother Jones “Monsanto’s man in Washington.” Nevertheless, in defending the amendment, Blunt, the consummate Washington insider, adopted his best aw shucks demeanor and pretended to be the farmer’s best friend:

Earlier on Thursday, in an interview with The Huffington Post, Blunt said that the point of the provision was to protect farmers who had already purchased seeds that were later deemed unsafe. “I was raised — my mom and dad were dairy farmers. Once you’ve made a decision to plant a crop for that year, you can’t go back and undo that decision,” he said.

Requiring Monsanto or other seed companies to compensate those farmers for lost income wasn’t a viable strategy either, the senator said, if the seeds had previously been permissible. “You can’t sue them for selling a crop that the federal government said is OK to plant,” he said.

Sounds good,right? But then why try to sneak the legislation through congress with no review or debate? Perhaps because, as Blunt admits, he wrote the amendment at the behest of and jointly with Monsanto, whose concern for farmers’ welfare is not exactly overwhelming when it’s a matter of the corporate bottomline:

Monsanto’s alleged “concern” for farmers has its limits. GMO seeds often end up in the fields of unsuspecting farmers who planted crops using traditional seeds. Inevitably, Monsanto’s “seed police” turn up at their doors armed with lawsuits claiming seed patent violations. The farmers are prohibited from recycling their own seeds and forced to pay hefty fines to Monsanto for having GMO crops they never planted in their fields.

Farmers buying Monsanto patented seeds must agree not to save the seeds for replanting or to sell seeds to other farmers. Each year farmers are forced to buy new seeds and more Roundup weed killer from Monsanto. Traditional seeds are disappearing. In the 1990s, pesticide manufacturers purchased seed companies, anticipating potential profits from monopolizing both aspects of farm production,

Blunt also claims that the rider he is fighting so valiantly to defend does nothing. That’s right – he claims that the USDA already has the authority to do what this bill specifies that it must do. Of course, there is, as Senator Merkley has noted, a difference between being able to so something on an as needed basis and being compelled to do it in all instances, regardless of the merits – but that’s perhaps just a little too subtle for our down home boy, Roy.

What Roy does understand all too well, though, is the old payola:

… According to OpenSecrets, Monsanto first started contributing to Blunt back in 2008, when it handed him $10,000. At that point, Blunt was serving in the House of Representatives. In 2010, when Blunt successfully ran for the Senate, Monsanto upped its contribution to $44,250. And in 2012, the GMO seed/pesticide giant enriched Blunt’s campaign war chest by $64,250.

Blunt is also a magnet for PAC money from the agribusiness industry as a whole, OpenSecrets data shows. In 2012, agribiz PACs gave him $51,000-more than any other industry save for finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). In 2010, the year of his Senate run, agribiz PACs handed him over $243,000, more than any other besides the FIRE and energy industries.

Senator Merkley has promised to continue to try to repeal Blunt’s Monsanto Protection Act. It wouldn’t hurt if some of us let Senator Blunt, the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture,  know that we’re tired of his business as usual attitude towards the folks who want to purchase our government. Call or email him today. Credo Action is offering a script for the phone call if you think it would help you.

Pass the gas station.

In W.B. Yeats’ poem, “The Second Coming,” he famously writes:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Sadly, these often quoted lines seem to be all too true when it comes to current politics. Take, for example, Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer and Missouri’s Governor Jay Nixon and their respective responses to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

Nixon’s no dummy; he wants the Medicaid expansion badly. He’s campaigned around the state and tried every reasonable, polite way to bring pressure to bear on the stable of GOP jackasses in Jefferson City to get them to do the right thing. Of course, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that there’s no way the Missouri GOP would forgo their obsessive hatred of Obamacare – along with everything Obama – long enough to think the Medicaid issues through,or to take them seriously if they did. These are the same fools, after all, who made the legislative session that just finished the butt of jokes across the nation.

Nevertheless, the Governor, in response to the GOP legislative rebuff, has politely refrained from casting stones, remarking that next session will provide another opportunity for Medicaid expansion. Of course, the statehouse will also be populated with the same blockheads next session, but such an observation would be beneath the dignity of famously GOP-cooperative, non-partisan (and lacking all conviction?) Jay Nixon.

In Arizona, however, Republican Jan Brewer, who has in the past been viewed as a number one, prima dona, tea partier – particularly when it comes to immigration issues – nevertheless managed to figure out that the federally-subsidized Medicaid expansion was a really good opportunity to improve life for thousands of Arizonans. Gifted with a legislature on a par with that of Missouri’s, she has shown herself to be filled with Yeats’ passionate intensity. No polite, rationally argued invitations to do better from Brewer  – she’s going to war with the Obamacare-averse Arizona legislature:

Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is stepping up her pressure on the GOP-led legislature to expand Medicaid by declaring a moratorium on legislating until they give in.

Brewer vetoed five unrelated bills on Thursday, according to the Arizona Republic, and threatened to keep blocking legislation until Republicans expand Medicaid to cover thousands of Arizonans, which Obamacare permits at minimal cost to the state.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m truly grateful for a Democratic governor like Nixon who can still veto some or, if we’re lucky, all of the bad bills sent to him by GOP lawmakers – as long as he actually does so, that is, since one can never be sure when he’s going to decide to make nice with the GOPers. I supported his election, and it’s possible he’s got some surefire strategy in mind in regard to Medicaid for next year. But I still wonder why liberals like Claire McCaskill or pseudo-liberals like Nixon don’t care enough to really go down to the wire fighting for just a few truly important issues. True, there are a handful of Democrats who show some spirit: Massachusett’s Elizabeth Warren, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, and just-retired Rep. Barney Frank, to name a few. But still – why can’t we grow and support progressives like these in Missouri?

While it’s too early to say whether or not Brewer will win her war with the Arizona legislature, it still grates that backward-thinking Jan Brewer has what it takes to fight for the uninsured in her state. Meanwhile, good old Jay Nixon just takes the slings and arrows of the GOP legislature on the chin – and, as a result, thousands of low-income Missourians will have to keep on keeping on without the health insurance that could save their or their children’s lives.

P.S. I don’t really think Jay Nixon is the best of us – but he’s not that bad, especially when compared with the Jan Brewer of the recent past.

*Edited slightly to restore omitted text.  

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C031159 05/25/2013 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Andrew A OBrien 815 Geyer Avenue Saint Louis MO 63104 Self Attorney 5/24/2013 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Campaign Finance: What’s your favorite number? (May 21, 2013)

Campaign Finance: here’s our favorite… (May 23, 2013)

But since tornadoes and crazed gunman are relatively rare, teachers are apparently evil the vast majority of the time.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121045 05/24/2013 TEACHGREAT.ORG Rex Sinquefield 244 Bent Walnut Westphalia MO 65085 Retired 5/23/2013 $100,000.00

[emphasis added]

According to the Amended Statement of Committee Organization [pdf] filed on April 2, 2013 Teachgreat.org, a PAC, is supporting a “Constitutional Amendment to Art, IX, Relating to Teachers and Certificated Staff”.

And what does “Teachgreat.org” want to do with all that Rex Sinquefield money? Make teachers at will [pdf] employees.

…is here to stay.

The initial and persistent reason cited by Republican state legislators for the terrible tax “reform” bill, HB253, that they sent to Governor Nixon is that it is necessary if we are to compete with Kansas in securing and retaining jobs. If businesses relocate to Kansas, which has gutted its tax system, they take their jobs with them, or so the argument goes.

The Missouri Society of Certified Public Accountants succinctly summarizes the content of the bill as follows:

HB253 reduces personal [to 5.5%] and corporate tax rates [to 3.25%], establishes for a deduction for flow through income for businesses, and increases the personal exemption amount for low income taxpayers. The legislation offsets the costs of these reductions by implementing the Streamlined Sales tax agreement, expanding Nexus for out of state vendors, and setting revenue growth targets that must be met before the rate reductions are fully implemented.

Although legislators try to lowball the yearly amount of revenue the state would forfeit, putting the cost at around $500 million – which is bad enough – the Missouri Budget Project argues that the tax cuts will cause the state to ultimately lose close to a billion dollars. As for our stalwart lawmakers fear of Kansas, the Post-Dispatch’s David Nicklaus notes that:

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington think tank, recently looked at six states that enacted big tax cuts between 2000 and 2007, and five more that cut income taxes in the 1990s, and found that they gained no particular economic advantage.

Nevertheless, the race to the bottom in regard to corporate taxes is a growing phenomena, particularly in red states.This in spite of the fact that there are possibly better ways to deal with corporate taxes that would address revenue needs without aggravating the ill-perceived worry about competitivenes. Jia Lynn Yang of WaPo’s Wonkblog, cites the example of California’s new sales-based corporate tax law:

… Let’s say a company earns 20 percent of its sales in California. The company would pay 20 percent of its worldwide sales to California at the state’s corporate tax rate. No need to worry about where the firm has offices or where its employees work – and no chance of the firms shifting their income to other states using elaborate, hard-to-trace methods.

Although California’s new law has an elective approach that could be problematic, this sales-based system has been touted as a solution to corporate taxation on a national-level – it would put a stop to corporations like Apple moving their profits off-shore to avoid U.S. taxes. Whether or not it would offer a solution to a state like Missouri – it does not address the issue of the “right” corporate rate – it does show that there are better ways to approach corporate taxes than letting business off the hook entirely without compensating adequately for the lost revenue – or by sticking the state’s middle and working classes with the bill in terms of higher stales taxes, which the Missouri legislation originally proposed to do.

Unfortunately, coming up with such solutions takes a commitment to use government to further the welfare of Missouri’s citizens, along with at least a modicum of intelligence; it also precludes ideological predispositions against taxes as an article of faith. Even more significantly for many Missouri GOP lawmakers, such solutions would not garner big checks from big-time progressive taxation opponents like Rex Sinquefield or the corporate pooh-bahs behind the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who have been pulling the strings of many of our state pols for some time.