Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler 3h

POTUS delays #Obamacare for businesses. House voting today to do just that, President threatens veto. Is it #OppositeDay? #FairnessForAll 3:10 PM – 17 Jul 13

“OppositeDay”? Representative Hartzler (r) has some expertise with that.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r). [file photo]

Let’s take a look at Representative Hartzler’s (r) press release:

Hartzler and House vote to delay ObamaCare’s individual and employer mandates

Jul 17, 2013

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) and the U.S. House have approved legislation to amend ObamaCare to delay until 2015 the enforcement requirements of the health care law’s individual and employer mandates.

“ObamaCare continues to unravel and it is now apparent it is headed for what Democrat Senator Max Baucus termed, ‘a train wreck,'” said Hartzler. “The Obama Administration has already indicated it is not prepared to move forward with the requirement that employers provide health coverage and has said it will delay the requirement mandate. Since employers are being allowed to delay compliance with this unworkable law, it is only fair that hardworking taxpayers be given the same treatment as businesses.”

“Individuals, families, and businesses all deserve relief from ObamaCare,” added Hartzler. “The people of Missouri’s Fourth Congressional District have made it clear to me they are concerned that ObamaCare will lead to skyrocketing premiums and cause citizens to lose the health coverage they have and like. They are like Americans throughout the country whose opposition to ObamaCare has only grown since it was rammed through Congress and signed into law by the President. I call upon the Senate to pass these common sense bills.”

H.R. 2668 – the Fairness for American Families Act – will delay the individual mandate for one year. H.R. 2667 – the Authority for Mandate Delay Act – will give the Obama Administration the authority it needs to delay the employer mandate for one year.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

Uh, that would be Democratic Senator. And that “train wreck” thing?:

The Secret History of Max Baucus’ “Train Wreck” Quote

By David Weigel

Posted Friday, May 24, 2013, at 11:32 AM

“….A lot of people have no idea about all of this,” he [Max Baucus] said. “People just don’t know a lot about it, and the Kaiser poll pointed that out. I understand you’ve hired a contractor. I’m just worried that that’s gonna be money down the drain because contractors like to make money … I just tell ya, I just see a huge train wreck coming down.”

What would cause the “train wreck”? Insufficient awareness of how the law worked. Not the law itself. Neither at that hearing nor in the month since has the (always pretty mush-mushed) Baucus said the law itself would be a disaster if implemented.

But that’s how Republicans used the quote….

[emphasis added]

And just who is affected by the Obama Administration delay?:

For Immediate Release: 7.2.2013

Most Small Businesses Won’t be Impacted by Delay in Healthcare Law’s Employer Responsibility Requirement

Statement by Terry Gardiner, Vice President, Policy & Strategy of Small Business Majority, about the Obama Administration delaying until 2015 requirements that employers with more than 50 employees offer health insurance to their employees

Washington, DC- The news today that the Obama Administration will delay until 2015 the requirement that employers with more than 50 employees provide insurance does not impact the vast majority of small business owners. Ninety-six percent of businesses in this country have fewer than 50 employees. For these employers nothing changes because they were already exempt from the employer responsibility requirements. For larger businesses with more than 50 employees, 96 percent already offer insurance and we believe will continue to for business reasons. Only the 4 percent of larger employers that do not offer health insurance will be impacted by the delay in the penalty.

The one-year delay in reporting requirements will allow larger businesses time to adjust and provide additional input to the Treasury on how the proposed requirements will work best.

The most important provisions for small business owners in the law are still moving full steam ahead, including health insurance exchanges. The exchanges, coming online on Jan. 1, 2014, will allow small businesses to pool their buying power to help drive down coverage costs. Additionally, small employers that do offer coverage will be eligible for a tax credit of up to 50 percent of their premiums.

[emphasis added]

“….’Individuals, families, and businesses all deserve relief from ObamaCare,’ added Hartzler….” [underline emphasis in the original]

Would it be too much for us to expect that Representative Hartzler (r) actually place her, ahem, “assertions” in something that even remotely resembles contextual reality? Don’t bother answering that.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): do tell us about the parts you don’t like (July 10, 2013)  

Heh, astroturf.

You think somebody loves them some HB 253? Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C101046 07/17/2013 MISSOURI CLUB FOR GROWTH POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE Rex Sinquefield 244 Bent Walnut Westphalia MO 65085 Retired 7/15/2013 $750,000.00

[emphasis added]

Jay, I wonder what they’re gonna spend all that money on? Nothing says “grassroots groundswell” like a check for three quarters of a million dollars from one person.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: be afraid, be very afraid (July 11, 2013)

Campaign Finance: total warfare, on all fronts (July 12, 2013)

Campaign Finance: total warfare, on all fronts – part 2 (July 12, 2013)

Lots of people no longer remember the riots that ensued in Boston when African-American children were bused to predominantly white schools. Mothers and grandmothers spitting, jeering and tossing trash and bricks at buses loaded with children. I bring this up as a prelude to a story about one of my aunts, a redoubtable, tough-as-nails Irish-American woman with a hard-scrabble background; in the 60s, thanks to decades of union effort to better the working classes, she and her family were just beginning to experience a little of that material comfort that so many identify with the American dream. In short, she was just the type of woman one would expect to see rioting in the streets to ward off the invading hordes.

But my aunt’s story is different. She lived in a quiet suburb where integration happened, for a blessing, relatively quietly and her children attended a school with many African-American children. As a result, in 1976 when Jimmy Carter was running for president, my aunt, a staunch Democrat, had to be reassured that Carter, a Southerner from Georgia, was not a racist, but had, in fact, spoken out against segregation. She explained her attitude in terms of her concern about the African-American children who were friends of her children and their parents, people she had met through school-related activities. In this case diversity in the classroom did what it was supposed to do – foster understanding and acceptance. I know that my aunt was an uncommonly open woman and her experience was not necessarily typical, but I bet there’s more like her out there and we’re a better country for it.

I bring this up because of Bill McClellan’s column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch a few days ago, titled “Understanding Anger at Transfers.” The column addressed the court-ordered transfer of a contingent mostly African-American children from the failing Normandy district to the heretofore  mostly lily white Francis Howell School District in St. Charles County. I want to be clear. I’m not going to rail against McClellan for racism. He’s a clever writer who specializes in empathy – real empathy, I think – especially for those who get short shrift almost everywhere else. I’ve always liked reading McClellan’s columns because he never presents himself as too good for the down-and-outers he often writes about.

I had a certain empathy myself for the point McClellan was making which focused on his father and McClellan’s perception that his upstanding, working class father would have had sympathy for the folks in the Francis Howell District. After all, McClellan implies, these white American who are responding with anger because their children may be exposed to poor, African-American children are actually only concerned that their children continue to enjoy the advantages they, their parents, have sacrificed to provide for them. McClellan concludes his column by acknowledging that he understands that anger too. He, like his father, saw solid neighborhoods decline after an influx of African-Americans.

Well-and-good. I understand what the fuss is about as well. I’ve had my own clutch of relatives who would have felt right at home with McClellan’s father. They were mostly people I loved and respected although I disagreed with them often. Because of them I know that frightened people often react angrily, even violently.

I part company with McClellan, however, when he neglects to point out that indulging this type of fear is destructive and prevents positive change – and when he fails to speak out about what’s really motivating the folks who label the transferring children as “trash.” I remember, after all, my aunt, one of the most hard-core members of her tribe, and her about-face when she learned first-hand that folks from other tribes aren’t necessarily as bad as they’re often cracked up to be.

In fact, McClellan seems to think (or not – more about his waffling later), that there’s a chain of facts that justifies the white flight that helped populate St. Charles county:

These are facts. Uncomfortable perhaps, but indisputable. The blacks arrived. The schools declined. The whites left. You can debate the underlying reasons, but you can’t argue the facts.

I’ll give McClellan the benefit of the doubt here. It’s possible that he is trying to say that this is the perception of the facts that fueled white flight, rather than the actual, complex sequence of events that led to the decline of inner-city schools. He must be aware that the sequence of events he outlines is itself questionable?  Perhaps things happened this way in St. Louis – I wasn’t here then – but it’s not the story in Detroit and many other once thriving American cities where, instead, (1) the blacks arrived, (2) the whites left, and (3) the schools declined. And that decline had lots to do with loss of property tax revenue and jobs that fled to the suburbs where white folks continued to live their rosy lives while black poverty intensified in the inner city. Some folks, like McClellan’s father, tried to stick it out, but the majority of whites began the race to the suburbs as soon as the first black family hit their blocks. And when the money and jobs go, so goes the neighborhood and the schools.

McClellan’s column was weak-tea, nothing to get anyone really worked up. But, in the context of a society where real racists seem to feel more and more emboldened, it’s maybe worth it to take the time to note that he’s not telling the whole story. Understanding ugly emotions is not enough. In a world where a young,unarmed black teenager can be harassed by a gun-toting vigilante neighborhood watchman, inappropriately confronted, ultimately shot dead, and the shooter is then found not guilty of anything at all, we can’t afford to go too easy on “white fear.”  

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091145 07/15/2013 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER Cape Radiology 70 Doctors Park Cape Giradeau MO 63703 7/15/2013 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

The July quarterly campaign finance reports are out. These are always interesting:

REPORT SUMMARY

FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER [pdf] 7/15/2013

2. All Monetary Contributions Received This Period $26,500.00

27. Money On Hand at the close of this reporting period $53,343.07

[emphasis added]

ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES OVER $100 SUPPLEMENTAL FORM

FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER [pdf] 7/15/2013

[….]

David Barklage

7925 Clayton Rd

St Louis MO 63107

4/2/2013

Messaging $2,000.00

[….]

David Barklage

7925 Clayton RD

St Louis MO 63107

6/17/2013

Research $10,000.00

Capitol Consulting

PO Box 931

Jefferson City MO 65102

6/26/2013

Fundraising $5,500.00

[….]

Peter Kinder

1220 Rockwood

Cape Giradeau MO 63701

6/21/2013

Hotel Reimbursement $602.84

[emphasis added]

Heh. “Messaging”. Indeed.

On a billboard along U.S. Highway 50 in west central Missouri:

“If we paid for education directly and eliminated the middleman wouldn’t that actually be more efficient?”

“Is that 888 number for people who support education too much?”

“Do all well funded Missouri public schools still use chalkboards?”

Kurt Schaefer (r) is running for something in 2016. At the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C081145: Citizens To Elect Kurt Schaefer

Po Box 1614 Committee Type: Candidate

Columbia Mo 65205 Party Affiliation: Republican

[….] Established Date: 04/04/2008

[….]

Election History

Election Year Primary Outcome General Outcome Political Office

2016 Statewide Office

[….]

[emphasis added]

Today:

C081145 07/15/2013 CITIZENS TO ELECT KURT SCHAEFER Catherine L. Schaefer Trust 1140 Jo Carr Drive Town and Country MO 63017 7/15/2013 $500,000.00

[emphasis added]

It just goes to show you that liberals always throw money at problems. Oh, wait…

A brief but important comment published by Robert Reich at Salon (h/t Daily Kos):

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections; (4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth.

Would you call this treason?

If not, what would you call it?

And what would you do about it?

Strong words. But maybe not too much so – simply consider these tidbits of recent Missouri political news:

1. First comes the Missouri GOP pols’ contribution to the effort to gum up the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As we noted yesterday, Senator Roy Blunt is prominently engaged in Republican efforts to sabotage the ACA, with shrill support from various Missouri House members like Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4). The congressional chorus is backed up by an advertising campaign, chock full of blatant lies, and funded by the Koch brothers. Together the one percenters and their congressional GOP lackeys, including our Missouri guys, are attempting to launch a mini coup d’etat:

Instead of trying to make the law of the land work, instead of doing the hard job of governance – like seriously considering a recent business-backed bill that would’ve tweaked the employer mandate – they’ve chosen the path of partisan sabotage. They continue to attack the law […], behaving as if it’s still 2009 (when the cry of “death panels!” led the league in lying). Worse yet, they’re actively working to prevent the public from learning more about what the law actually says.

2. At the state level, The Turner Report published a revealing report authored by State Representative Ed Emery (R-31) in which he discusses the role of the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Missouri government:

Missouri has a representation on each of the [ALEC] task forces, and our involvement ensures that Missouri’s interests and perspectives are a part of every deliberation. Federalism makes each state a laboratory, and ALEC involvement provides Missouri state government the best opportunity to develop effective government policies and avoid harmful ones. I hope you approve.

ALEC brings corporate lobbyists and state legislators together (on ALEC’s dime) and has been behind much of the slew of anti-worker, anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-tax and pro-privatization initiatives produced by Missouri’s legislators this session, at times even providing model legislation for our legislators to crib from. Emery may not be the brightest light in the room, but he is at least open about the role of the usually secretive organization and its influence buying operation – which may, of course, be exactly because he isn’t the brightest light in the room.

3. The Turner Report also noted the $1.2 million dollars Rex Sinquefield contributed to a group dedicated to overturning Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of legislation passed this session that would have cut Missouri’s corporate taxes almost to nothing, decimating the revenue stream that ensures government functioning. This donation joins Sinquefield’s other very sizeable donations to groups that support his anti-tax, pro-educational privatization goals. Just this summer, Sinquefield has already put down almost two million dollars to bolster the down payment he’s already paid out in his effort to purchase the state.

And bear in mind that these examples are the result of twenty minutes cursory searching. One can only imagine the length of this piece were I to try to be comprehensive. What is clear is that when Reich paints a picture of politicians doing the bidding of the very wealthy for the benefit of the very wealthy, selling out government to do what is best for corporations and at the behest of rich ideologues, and sabotaging laws that these rich poobahs don’t like, Missouri’s GOP political class could have provided the model.

My question: Are we sending traitors to Washington D.C. and Jefferson City, or just borderline felons? And along with Robert Reich, I wonder what we’re going to do about it.

 

On a vehicle in western Missouri:

Astroturf!

Who enabled first, the followers, their leaders, or batshit crazy billionaires? Just asking.

Previously:

Debunking Roy Blunt (July 13, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): do tell us about the parts you don’t like (July 10, 2013)

THE MOTIVATING EVENT(S): Most parts of the The Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare will be implemented in 2014.

THE GENERAL PROBLEM: The GOP has made opposing Obamacare their raison d’etre; they have, with some success, managed to recast what was at one time a Republican response to health care into a symbol of repressive government overreach, inculcating baseless fears among those poorly informed Americans who are susceptible to the GOP narrative. This very useful propaganda structure will be threatened when the law goes into effect and has few or no negative consequences for most Americans, while making health care available to others for the first time. If Republicans don’t want to be exposed as weak and corrupt, they have to intensify their kicking and screaming while lobbing spanners into any part of the Obamacare works that are vulnerable.

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MISCHIEF:The Obama Administration has delayed until 2015 the requirement that businesses with 50 or more employees that are not already offering insurance begin to do so. Many health care policy types have  argued persuasively that the delay will have little negative impact while allowing the administration to concentrate on more crucial aspects of ACA implementation. Only 2% of businesses that meet the criteria for the delay, those with 50 or more employees, do not already offer insurance. There is, however, a symbolic risk and opponents of the law are already attempting to parlay the change into yet more anti-Obamacare hysteria.

SEIZING THE OPPORTUNITY: The GOP has been quick to try to capitalize on  this event, gleefully grabbing their spanners. Yesterday a few GOP senators – including our boy Roy – got together to let us know, totally without irony, how exercised they are about the delay in implementing a law that they otherwise oppose, and what they intend to do about it via amendments to an upcoming spending bill:

1. Deny funds to enforce the employer mandate.

2. Deny funds to enforce the individual mandate.

3. Deny funds for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that sets pricing guidelines for Medicare (and which GOP senators persist in fancifully dubbing “death panels,” in spite of the risible effect that label now has).

ROY’S ROLE: As a member of the Senate leadership, it is significant that Missouri GOP Seantor Blunt put forward the Republican talking points:

Blunt’s main points:

1. The delay of the employer mandate is intended purely for political reasons; Blunt claims that the fallout of implementing the mandate will hurt Democrats in 2014. However, if that were the case, why aren’t provisions that will have much greater impact – the individual mandate, for instance – being delayed? In general, the delays and work-arounds that Roy details will have little major impact, but will ensure a smoother roll-out over all.

2. Blunt suggests that the delay contravenes the law. This contention is, in fact, not true. The employer mandate has not actually been delayed – only the reporting requirements, which are arguably an implementation detail. The effect will be, true, to delay implementation since fines for non-compliance cannot be levied without the reporting mechanisms.

3. Blunt notes that as part of the reporting mechanism, income verification mechanisms for individuals who apply for insurance subsidies are also waived – a better word, however, would have been delayed. Those who attempt to take advantage of the delay to make inappropriate claims will be forced to verify their eligibility for the subsidies within a few months. Hardly justification for doing away with the exchanges or the subsidies for lower income Americans.

4. Rather than allowing the administration to defer minor parts of the law in order to insure that major sections, such as the insurance exchanges, work from the start with as few glitches as possible, Blunt wants us to “permanently delay” what he calls a “flawed law” so that better alternatives can be crafted. Right. Remember when Roy Blunt, recipient of lots of insurance industry money, was the point man in charge of one of those alternative plans? And remember how we all had a good laugh when he offered up his plan.

Good GOP soldier Roy has been pushing these points on the various social media and via emails to his constituents. A copy of the email I received is included below the fold.

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ROY: Although our boy Roy is a relatively junior Senator, he’s a Washington old-timer and has been a big-time GOP inside player. Consequently, he’s already got a place in the Senate’s GOP leadership group and one would probably be correct in assuming that he’s working hard to amass the type of weight that will propel him forward. And, as always with Blunt, there’s his lucrative corporate ties – his ability to pull in the green not only aids his reelection, but it also boosts him as a power player. Never doubt that Blunt’s got skin in the game when it comes time to reinforce the party line.

CONCLUSIONS: I’ll let Steve Benen articlate the more general conclusions:

… They [i.e., Republicans] have a choice between governing and these ridiculous antics, and they clearly prefer the latter.

Keep in mind, there is no precedent in American history for this. Countless measures have passed over the objections of one party or the other, but we’ve never seen a political dynamic in which one radicalized, unhinged party casts literally dozens of pointless repeal votes while actively, shamelessly trying to sabotage existing federal law.

What conclusions can we draw specifically about Roy Blunt and his role in these “antics”? We know he’s not a total ass, like Senator Mike Lee, who  threatened to shut down the government to prevent federal budget funds for Obamacare. Our boy’s been around the block a few times; it’s a safe bet he’s willingly participating in a political charade meant to serve partisan ends despite harmful consequences for his constituents and the nation as a whole. I’ll leave it to you to supply the appropriate descriptive term – I’m trying hard to avoid obscenities.

*1st sentence of 2nd paragraph edited slightly for clarity; link added in third paragraph.

What follows is the text of the email I received from Senator Blunt:

Dear Friend,

I’ve heard time and again from Missourians who are rightly concerned about the impact of ObamaCare. Amid growing criticism, the Obama administration announced last week that it will delay a key component of this law – the employer mandate- until after the 2014 elections.

By announcing this delay, the Obama Administration admitted what we’ve long known: This law is fundamentally flawed. But picking and choosing which aspects of the law to postpone is like riding a bike with one wheel – it simply does not work.

I’ve repeatedly voted to repeal and defund ObamaCare. We need a permanent delay of this law for all Americans while we work to implement common-sense health care solutions.

I joined my colleagues this week to call on the president to enact a permanent delay for everyone, and I recently spoke on the Senate floor about this critical issue. I’ve also asked Missourians to share their questions about ObamaCare on Facebook and via Twitter using #AskRoy.

I hope you’ll join this conversation online, and that you will continue to share your stories, questions, and concerns with me regarding this and other important topics facing our state and the nation by visiting my website.