Today, from Digby:

The progressive partisan strategy can work after all

….The administration has often cited the fact that they are unable to accomplish more progressive priorities due to certain Senate Democrats who fail to cooperate. You cannot help but wonder if they might have more success if they’d deployed this strategy before. Certainly, the outside groups wanted nothing more than to organize with the White House to put pressure on recalcitrant centrist and conservative Democrats. They just weren’t given much of an opportunity. If it could be effective against the most powerful bipartisan lobby in the country, just think what it might have done on other issues….

Yeah, we knew that in 2009.

Go. Read the whole thing.

Previously: High Broderism (February 24, 2012)

We repeat ourselves, but so does Senator Claire McCaskill.

High Broderism – Also frequently seen as merely “Broderism.” A fetishistic attachment to bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake; reflexive adherence to false equivalencies, regardless of whether what one side says is patently insane. The result of forty years of believing that Dirty Fucking Hippies may be hiding under your bed. Whereby a center-right pundit, often Broder himself, decrees that bipartisanship is a good thing and can be achieved if only everyone would agree with the center-right pundit. For the last ten years or so, High Broderism has been the shorter version of virtually every op-ed from David Broder.

Today, from Senator Claire McCaskill:

Nonpartisan Rankings: McCaskill Maintains Moderate Course in Senate

On scale of conservative-to-liberal, National Journal ranks McCaskill 50 out of 100

February 7, 2014

WASHINGTON – The nonpartisan news magazine National Journal has released its annual rankings of members of Congress from liberal-to-conservative-and U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill has again landed exactly in the moderate middle, ranking #50 out of 100.

[….]

“I haven’t made folks on either extreme of the political spectrum happy, and I’ve stepped on a lot of toes since I came to the Senate, but that’s okay,” McCaskill said. “Because I wasn’t elected to make friends. I was elected to get results for Missouri families-to expand job opportunities, cut wasteful spending, and help clean up Washington so folks can have confidence in their federal government.”

Since joining the Senate, National Journal has consistently ranked McCaskill in the ten most moderate U.S. Senators-and also ranked her as #50 out of 100 in its 2012 rankings.

McCaskill has been criticized by some in her party over her strong support for the Keystone XL Pipeline, her bipartisan work to cap federal spending, and her longstanding battle against Congressional earmarks. McCaskill has also been targeted for criticism over her support for the Affordable Care Act, her work to end huge taxpayer handouts to big oil companies and multi-millionaires, and her success in bolstering accountability in government contracting.

From National Journal’s website: “For the 2013 ratings, National Journal examined all of the roll-call votes in the first session of the 113th Congress-641 in the House and 291 in the Senate-and identified the ones that show ideological distinctions between members. Many votes did not make the cut-those that involve noncontroversial issues or that fall along regional lines, for instance. In the end, 117 votes in the Senate and 111 votes in the House were selected and were categorized as economic, foreign, or social.”

[….]

This is precious: “….McCaskill has been criticized by some in her party over….her success in bolstering accountability in government contracting….” Is that really an article of faith view expressed from the extremist left? Just asking. How about on that earmarks thing? Just asking.

Update: Okay, that is from two sentences. We’ll chalk that one up to less than stellar press release writing… [end update]

Uh, Senator McCaskill, you’re not in the middle. From two year ago:

[….]That is, ignoring the reality that the Overton Window has been moved so far to the right that what once was “moderate” is now considered extreme left and:

….the GOP knows that the middle DOES matter.  They know that by playing to their base in very well-crafted ways, they can shift the very definition of what the middle is. By introducing radicalism into the public discourse (and taking initial heat for it), whatever used to be radical within this context becomes moderate by comparison….

[….]

Senator McCaskill’s recent ranking among all senators from the National Journal:

The 2013 liberal/conservative rankings in the United States Senate by the National Journal. Higher liberal rating is on the left, higher conservative rating is on the right. Senator Claire McCaskill’s ranking is indicated by the green mark. Democratic Party and Independent (2) Senators are to the left of the red vertical line, Republican senators are to the right of the red vertical line. The middle of the Democratic Party caucus in the Senate is indicated by the blue vertical line and mark.

The four Democratic Senators to the right of Senator McCaskill in the National Journal rankings are Senators Kay Hagen, Joe Donnelly, Mark Pryor, and Joe Manchin. The six closest Democratic Party senators to the left of Senator McCaskill in the rankings are Senators Heidi Heitkamp, Mark Begich, Jon Tester, Mark Warner, Max Baucus, and Mary Landrieu. Mary freakin’ Landrieux. These individuals are not considered “moderates” in anyone’s book. And immediately to the left of Senator Landrieu is Senator Angus King, an Independent who used to be a republican.

“….I haven’t made folks on either extreme of the political spectrum happy….” Spare us the “both sides do it” inside the beltway conventional wisdom, please.

As for the batshit crazy republicans in the Senate? Senators Michael Enzi, Ted Cruz, James Inhofe, John Barrasso, Mike Lee, Pat Roberts (does he actually live in Kansas anymore?), and twelve more positions before we get to Senator Rand Paul.

The sixth most liberal Senator? Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

We rest our case.

Again, from two years ago:

….In our present environment a true moderate would be in the middle of their own party, not to the right of it.

Today TPM reports that former Florida govenor Charlie Crist, who is running against Medicare-fraud perpetrator Governor Rick Scott to regain the governorship of that state, spoke some home truths to MSNBC’s Chuck Todd about the consequences of failing to take advantage of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion provisions:

About a million of my fellow Floridians are not getting health care today, and I am told by friends SEIU (sic), that means six people in Florida die every day as a result of that. Every day,” Crist said.

[…]

It’s not hard to figure that out. It’s common sense. Look at it. If people are sick, and they aren’t getting health care, what happens? They usually get sicker,” Crist said. “Or they die. I mean, those are just the facts, Chuck. That’s what happens. In addition to it, it’s economically stupid. As a result, we’re not getting $51 billion over the next 10 years for the health care institutions in Florida. So the people get better health care, so that kids don’t get sick, that we take care of people. That’s what public servants are supposed to do. That’s why I’m running against Rick Scott, because he’s not a good servant.”

The claim that six people will die daily if Medicaid is not expanded likely comes, as TPM noted, from a joint Harvard University and  City University of New York report published last month. You can quibble about the actual number – it’s an estimate after all – but the point is that people will die while ideologues posture and babble incoherently about “government dependency” and the “unsustainable costs” involved in directing federal tax dollars back to the home state.

What does this factoid mean for Missouri? Approximately 2190 yearly deaths that could have been prevented.

But we can take it farther. Most Republicans oppose expanding Medicaid and most Democrats support it. In the Missouri Senate, 24 members are Republicans; in the House, 106 representatives are Republicans, making a total of 130 Republicans running things in Jefferson City. We can do some rough math and conclude that if Medicaid is not expanded, each Republican in the legislature will be responsible for the death of 16.8 Missourians per year, give or take a few.

A crude, tongue-in-cheek exercise perhaps? But no matter, it’s a sure bet that there will be deaths as a result of the action – or rather inaction – of Missouri Republicans. And no matter how you count our dead fellow Missourians, they’ll amount to quite rack of trophies for each Missouri GOPer.

First sentence amended for clarity and a link was added.

Today I learned that state Rep. Scot Fitzpatrick (R-158), who represents predominantly rural Barry County, is sponsoring a bill, HB1355, that would exempt day care businesses in similar counties from state regulation, while allowing the local jurisdictions to enact alternative rules should they feel the need for any regulation. To put this in perspective, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that “all but six of 56 child care deaths in Missouri from 2007 through July 2011 occurred in unlicensed home day cares.” Recently, one of those deaths, that of baby Izabella Moore, has been in the news as her parents seek to unseal records pertaining to her death in an unlicensed Perry County day care facility in which fourteen children were left in the care of one adult. Indications are that the child was left unattended in a basement for several hours during which time she died. Not surprising given those circumstances, though the fact that the unlicensed day care in question is still operating is indeed perplexing.

But Rep. Fitzpatrick does actually have an reasonable case to make:

The way Fitzpatrick sees it, most child care providers in his area cannot afford to come into compliance with state licensing standards.

He said they lack the staff to meet state standards for adult-to-child ratios. He said they can’t survive under the state’s enrollment limits, which cap their number of paying clients.

He’s right. Barry County, which is typical of many rural Missouri counties, has a poverty rate of 18%; the median household income is about $38,000. Women make up half the population and it’s likely, given the economic make-up of the county, that many Barry County mothers have to work if the family is to survive. It’s also likely that many of those families can’t afford to meet the costs for quality child care – which, in turn, means that there will be few day cares that offer such care.

Nevertheless, if Rep. Fitzpatrick is right about the conditions that lead to substandard child care operations, he is not right about the remedy. Wouldn’t this be the time to propose beefing up state child care assistance? It is certainly true that Missouri hasn’t been overdoing such assistance:

Unfortunately the State of Missouri has one of the weakest Child Care Assistance Programs in the country.  Missouri’s eligibility requirements for Child Care Assistance are among the most stringent of all the states (you have to be poorer than families in all but four other state to qualify for assistance in Missouri) and the state’s assistance payments are the lowest.  In Missouri child care providers are reimbursed for providing services at only about half the market rate.  The federal standard for reimbursement of providers is at 75 percent of the market rate.  Missouri has not increased its child care reimbursement rate since 1999.  […]

It is equally true that, as the Missouri based Vision for Children at Risk (VCR) notes, that quality child care “is critical to the development and well-being of children,” a fact that affects the well-being of our society as a whole. The VCR also adds that the purpose of state funded child care assistance is “is to enable families to gain employment and remain employed” while securing acceptable care for their children. I may be wrong, but I think I’ve been hearing lots of Republicans gassing on and on about how the poor have to work. Why then make them choose between the well-being of their children and the need to feed them? Could it be because nobody thinks these folks matter? Rep. Fitzpatrick’s legislative remedy certainly implies that poor people in poor jurisdictions don’t deserve quality care for their children.

Rep. Ftizpatrick is, however, willing to go out on a limb to provide relief to one class of Missourians, namely the wealthy. He was vigorous in his defense of last year’s misguided and ultimately defeated tax cut for the rich, HB253, and will undoubtedly be hitting the hustings to campaign for this year’s variant of tax relief for the rich and connected. That he can do so while throwing up his hands, saying nothing can be done about poverty and the state of child care for the poor except relegate their children to the type of day care that might be the norm in a third world country says volumes about the type of country that Republicans want us to become. If I didn’t think it was hopeless, I’d say somebody ought to describe the benefits of progressive tax reforms to the Representative while disabusing him of some of the rightwing trickle down mythology that allows the wealthy to make out like bandits at the expense of the rest of us.

One last fact that should excite wonder: Barry county votes overwhelmingly Republican and it’s more than likely that Rep. Fitzpatrick’s disdain for the children of his constituents will be spun as concern for their plight – and most of them, desperate to get along during hard times, will go along with the spin. Lots of them will also think that he’s right to go after taxes – even though many of them will end up on the short end of the stick. Because P.T. Barnum was right: there’s a sucker born every minute.    

But you didn’t need us to tell you that, did you?

This morning in west central Missouri – at -5°F.

Previously:

Your between storms moment of Zen (February 3, 2014)

Your before the next deep freeze moment of Zen (February 5, 2014)

Today, from the right wingnut controlled House in Jefferson City:

HR 380

Adopts Articles of Impeachment for Governor Jay Nixon for the issuance of Executive Order 13-14 regarding the filing of a MIssouri state combined income tax return by certain same-sex couples

Sponsor: Marshall, Nick (013)

Co-Sponsor: Brattin, Rick (055) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2014

LR Number: 5273L.01I

Last Action: 02/06/2014 – Offered (H)

Bill String: HR 380

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The only possible explanations are that a radical Democratic Party operative has infiltrated the House republican teabagger caucus bent on prodding them toward irrational self destruction, or they’re really, really, stoopid. Your pick.

Either way, we can only hope they proceed, to the eventual benefit of everyone else in Missouri.

Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) Executive Order 13-14, which prompted the pearl clutching:

Executive Order 13-14

WHEREAS, following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17, in which it announced that “[f]or Federal tax purposes, the terms ‘spouse,’ ‘husband and wife,’ ‘husband,’ and ‘wife’ include an individual married to a person of the same sex if the individuals are lawfully married under state law, and the term ‘marriage’ includes such a marriage between individuals of the same sex”; and

WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has announced that, under Revenue Ruling 2013-17, same-sex couples legally married in a state that authorizes such marriages, regardless of their place of domicile, may file a joint federal individual income tax return; and

WHEREAS, the tax code of Missouri is coupled to the federal tax code, and Missouri tax filers are required to utilize information from their federal tax return when completing their Missouri state income tax return; and

WHEREAS, section 143.031.1, RSMo, mandates that “[a] husband and wife who file a joint federal income tax return shall file a combined [state] return”; and

WHEREAS, section 143.091, RSMo, requires that “[a]ny term used in sections 143.011 to 143.996 shall have the same meaning as when used in a comparable context in the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes….”; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Revenue, under section 143.091, RSMo, must apply the same meaning to the phrase “husband and wife” as is applied under federal law pursuant to Revenue Ruling 2013-17; and

WHEREAS, married individuals, including same-sex couples legally married in a state that authorizes such marriages, who file a joint federal income tax return must file a combined income tax return with the State of Missouri.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Missouri, do hereby Order the Missouri Department of Revenue to follow sections 143.031.1 and 143.091, RSMo, and require all taxpayers who properly file a joint federal income tax return to file a combined state income tax return.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Missouri, in the City of Jefferson, on this 14th day of November, 2013.

s/Jay Nixon

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon

Governor

ATTEST:

s/Jason Kander

Jason Kander

Secretary of State

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C000960 02/06/2014 MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE Democratic Victory Committee PO Box 1754 Jefferson City MO 65102 2/6/2014 $5,500.00

[emphasis added]

At this rate the committee name prophecy probably won’t kick in for a while.

Previously: Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): “Seriously? You expect me to actually read the footnotes in the report?” (February 4, 2014)

You wouldn’t know that republicans were at the same hearing:

Conservatives Seize On Report To Argue Obamacare Is A Job Killer – But The Author Says They’re Wrong

By Sy Mukherjee on February 5, 2014 at 1:42 pm

On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Doug Elmendorf refuted the claim that the Affordable Care Act is a job killer – a misleading takeaway from his agency’s new report that is being touted by Obamacare critics….

….In fact, the CBO report explicitly states that the estimated reduction in labor “stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor” and that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of ACA.” Those notions are further supported by economic data on full- and part-time employment trends over the last several years. Simply put, the report finds that Obamacare will reduce the number of people who are forced to work a job merely for the sake of health insurance….

Today, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

In sobering Budget Comm.w/ CBO Dir. Projection: $10 trillion more to natl. debt, slow economy, and ACA causing loss of 2.5 million jobs. 9:26 AM – 5 Feb 2014

[emphasis added]

And that, of course, generated responses:

TQJ ‏@tqjones44

@RepHartzler Stop lying about job losses! 9:27 AM – 5 Feb 2014

Chet Coenen ‏@chetcoenen

@RepHartzler source your numbers? 9:28 AM – 5 Feb 2014

Alex ‏@aivanther

@RepHartzler I hate to say this, but you realize a trillion dollar farm Bill is part of the problem, right? 12:05 PM – 5 Feb 2014

For some reason, I just don’t think we’re going to see a lot of open public town halls in the 4th Congressional District before the 2014 general election.

Ice from the previous storm in west central Missouri.

Previously: Your between storms moment of Zen (February 3, 2014)