Then again, if you do it right, every day is Mother’s Day.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C091068 05/10/2014 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, INC Friends Of Tilley PO Box 555 Perryville MO 63775 5/10/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’ll pay for a lot of robocalls.

There’s that number again.

What it is it with $10,000.00 contributions? Did somebody write a memo we didn’t get? Just asking.

Recently Google was persuaded by NARAL to remove ads for crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and similar pressure is being brought to bear on Yahoo to drop such adds from the search results for abortion services. NARAL demonstrated* the level of duplicity practiced by CPCs in their ads and asked Google and Yahoo to honor their own policies against misleading advertising:

These ads use vague language that masks their true motives. If you click through, you’ll get connected to a crisis pregnancy center (CPC). CPCs are anti-choice fake clinics don’t provide or refer for abortion care. The trouble is, a woman might think she’s made an appointment with a real medical provider, and she won’t know what she’s gotten into until she gets to a CPC in person, where she’ll likely face manipulation, misinformation, and even shame to stop her from considering abortion – and even birth control – as an option.

Crisis pregnancy centers misinform and manipulate vulnerable women in order to deny them recourse to abortion and contraception. A congressional report issued in 2006 found that “87 percent of federally funded CPCs ‘provided false and misleading information about the physical and mental health effects of abortion and grossly exaggerated the medical risks of abortion.'” The NARAL study shows that the deceptive practices extends to CPC internet advertising where over three fourths of the ads for CPCs that were examined couldn’t pass the truth in advertising smell test.

It may or may not come as a surprise to you that Missouri is one of the small number of states that both promotes CPCs and subsidizes them with tax dollars. In fact, state lawmakers have just passed legislation – with bipartisan support – raising the amount of tax credits that can be claimed by donors to CPCs in the coming year. HB1132 (and Senate companion  bill  SB638) specifies that the cap on such tax credits will be raised from $2 million to $2.5 million in 2014-15.** Additionally, according to a Guttmacher Institute Report, the House passed legislation in March that would allocate $2.1 million in state funding to CPCs, half of which was designated for publicity and advertising.

In fact, our lawmakers are so enamoured of CPCs and so desirous to promote them that the House also sought to insure that local jurisdictions couldn’t try any of that Google-like truth in advertising stuff. By pretending that the issue in question was “religious” speech,  HB1103 (and companion bill SB658 – which, so far as I can ascertain, languishes in committee) attempted to curtail efforts to regulate the abusive practices of Missouri CPCs.

One cannot expect lawmakers who either identify with or pander to rightwing evangelicals to understand the problem of identifying these groups as essentially religious in their goals and then endowing them with taxpayer dollars to pursue those goals. Nor should one expect them to appreciate the irony that these beneficiaries of my tax dollars, people whose religious  views I do not share, are the very people who claim to be  so fastidious abut the possible taint they suffer when their tax dollars are used to support contraception insurance coverage or agencies such as Planned Parenthood that offer the full range of women’s reproductive health services that they have intellectual conniption fits at the very thought.

And, indeed, the problem goes beyond irony. Huffington Post identified three large CPC networks that not only practice religiously-based discrimination in their hiring practices, but which actively proselytize clients. One of the three large networks of CPCs cited as egregious offenders by HufPo was National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA). If you check this list of NIFLA affiliates in Missouri, you will find that all are represented on the list (pdf) of “qualified” pregnancy resource centers promoted by the Missouri Department of Social Services. Something to think about maybe? After all, there are still a few of us that think we’re all better off when we prevent the state from funding and endorsing stealthy and coercive religious activity.

____________________________________________

* If you don’t mind reading rightwing drivel and you want a laugh, take a look at this RedState take on the issue – if I understand the especially perspicacious blogger correctly, Google paid (?) NARAL to produce a report that would allow them to justify banning the ads for “legitimate” pregnancy centers because, doncha know, those evil lefties at Google just love inciting controversies that will miff some of their customer base.

** It’s possible that the bipartisan support for this bill increased when it was amended to add additional funds for food pantries. As they say, “a little bit of sugar makes the pill go down.” But only fools try to pretend that the bitter pill’s not there, inside the sugar-coating.  

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111150 05/09/2014 FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH Jerry Sumners Sr PO Box 604 Aurora MO 65605 Service Vending Company CEO 5/9/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

What it is it with $10,000.00 contributions? Did somebody write a memo we didn’t get? Just asking.

A moment of Zen…

…before the weather changes and the budget cuts start.

Via twitter:

billmon ‏@billmon1

America’s auto dealers: Vigorously undermining the free market system at every opportunity: http://bit.ly/1oywbkZ  Goddamn commies. 1:55 PM – 9 May 2014

It’s about Tesla Motors:

AlterNet / By Cliff Weathers

Missouri May Be the Next State to Ban Tesla Motors

Legislators in the “Show Me State” are trying to sneak through legislation banning the electric car company from selling directly to consumers.

….Missouri is the latest state to try to slip in anti-Tesla legislation without anyone noticing. The “Show Me State” legislature is trying to obscure their actions by slipping through legislation as it current session comes to an end this Spring.

Just this week, the state’s auto dealers proposed new language in an existing bill that would force consumers to buy new cars and trucks only through franchised dealerships. The bill, HB 1124, has been in bouncing around since late last year, and was passed by the state’s House in mid April without containing any anti-Tesla language. But this week, the bill reemerged with the new language aimed to stop Tesla from selling cars. This Senate version passed with no public consultation whatsoever, and will likely move to the House floor for a final vote, essentially without debate.

This change to the bill is not just a minor amendment, it has morphed into a bill that is completely unrelated to the original one, which related only to sales for off-road and all-terrain vehicles and barred the manufacturers from competing against their franchisees (for example, Ford Motor Company cannot compete against Ford dealerships). Tesla, which doesn’t have franchisees or a dealership network, would not have been effected by the original bill.

The amendment also attempts to redefine the word “franchisor” to mean “manufacturer”, a slick change of legal wording of which legislators may not even be aware. This goes beyond automotive dealers trying to protect their existing monopolies – this legislation seeks to create a new car-sales monopoly….

Sigh.

From Representative Chris Kelly (D):

Chris Kelly ‏@repckelly

The Tesla issue in #moleg will be about abusive market regulation & deceptive legislative procedure. Also campaign dollars vs principle. 1:58 PM – 9 May 2014

And here it is (a version):

SENATE SUBSTITUTE

FOR

SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE

FOR

HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE

FOR

HOUSE BILL NO. 1124

AN ACT

To repeal sections 301.010, 301.227, 301.700, 302.020, 407.815, 407.826, and 578.120, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof eight new sections relating to motor vehicles, with existing penalty provisions.

[….]

2. A franchisor shall not sell new motor vehicles directly to any retail consumer except through a franchisee for the line-make that includes the new motor vehicle unless such consumer is an employee of the franchisor, or is a not-for-profit organization or an agency of the federal, state or local governments. This subsection shall not preclude a franchisor from providing information to consumers for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of a new motor vehicle or from establishing programs to sell or offer to sell new motor vehicles through participating franchisees.

[….]

Communism!

“…abusive market regulation & deceptive legislative procedure. Also campaign dollars vs principle.”

Welcome to Missouri.

The legislative session is mercifully coming to a close. There’s one more week of thrashing about, but for all intents and purposes the majority of the action has taken place.

Yesterday, it was all about the state budget.

An elementary school choir sang the national anthem on the floor of the House at the start of the day’s session.

Introducing guests in the gallery.

It was down hill from there.

Debating the budget bills:

Representative Chris Kelly (D).

Representative Genise Montecillo (D).

Representative Margo McNeil (D).

Representative TJ McKenna (D).

Representative Jill Schupp (D).

Point of order. The works got gummed up a bit when a member of the Democratic minority (foreground) raised a point of order concerning the constitutional requirement that the content of bills members of the House vote on must be available to those members before they actually vote on it. The discussion took place with the republican majority Floor Leader. Much hilarity ensued.

Far from it.

From Governor Jay’s Nixon’s veto of SB 509:

….Moreover, the revenue triggers in the legislation only apply until the tax cuts are fully phased-in. After that time, under the legislature’s own estimates, there would be at least $620 million less in general revenue available each and every year, regardless of whether revenue collections are going up or down. In addition, the legislation’s annual cost would continue to grow above the legislature’s $620 million annual estimate because the income bracket adjustments in the bill for increases in the consumer price index would continue indefinitely. See Section 143.011.3. This provision alone would result in an additional $128 million in annual revenue reductions ten years after the legislation is fully phased-in, increasing each year in perpetuity….

[emphasis added]

A bill cannot be bipartisan when it needs a majority of only one party to pass it.

Democratic lawmaker removed from committees after voting with GOP on tax cut

by Eli Yokley • May 7, 2014

….English was a special guest at a private reception for Republican lawmakers on Tuesday night. He told members that he wanted to vote in favor of the bill when it was first brought up in the House, but that he was urged by Republican leadership to hold off until the override vote in an attempt to avoid pressure from Democrats, including the governor.

When you find yourself in a deep hole the first rule is to stop digging.

While the House was in session today, working to complete the process on budget bills by the deadline on Friday, we spoke with three representatives about the veto override vote of SB 509. Representative Keith English was the only Democrat in the General Assembly to vote to override Governor Nixon’s (D) veto:

Representative Keith English (D)(center) – May 6, 2014.

Show Me Progress: So, it’s been an, uh, something of an interesting week for you, hasn’t it?

Representative Keith English (D): Uh, it’s been a very interesting week. You know, um, I worked very hard with both sides of the aisle this week to make sure that, uh, we try to do what we can to make the state move forward, be more competitive with other states, stopping right to work and paycheck deception, stripping teachers of their pensions and the tenure. Um, I had to look really deep into, uh, legislation that we can be more competitive. And I think this bill is definitely gonna do that.

Show Me Progress: You’re, you’re referring to Senate Bill 509.

Representative English (D): Senate Bill 509, that’s correct. Senate Bill 509, uh, will take a two year period, the next two years, we’ll look at, uh, how much money we generate. Then on the third year, through the next five years after that, if, and that’s the big word, if, we can get small businesses, which are the backbone of this, this state, uh, to help generate seven hundred and fifty million dollars to the good, uh, we will, uh, give a little bit back to those businesses to reinvest in their companies to expand more.

And with the rising cost of health insurance, uh, under Obamacare, uh, and insurance companies, uh, dropping companies for uh, for different reasons, uh, and the possibility of the federal government increasing minimum wage to a possible ten dollars and ten cents an hour I feel strongly that we have to do something to tell the small businesses in Missouri, don’t move away, we’ll try to help you. Um, in my district we have businesses that are struggling so bad, uh, and with business of course, and if we can give them some incentive to hire more people, ’cause a lot of them have cut back, cut back to three and four employees when they had five and six. And being a small business owner, um, I know exactly what that feels like.

Show Me Progress: But, uh, didn’t, you know, in some ways, uh, uh, the, the concept of sort of an economic stimulus, per se, with this kind of, uh, cutting back of, of revenue in the sense of, of  tax cut, per se [crosstalk] it’s, it’s, the bill made it structural though, and something that can’t be rolled back.

Representative English (D): Well, in the bill [crosstalk]…Well, there’s a failsafe in there, in case, if we don’t hit that hundred fifty million the bill dies. The bill will not move further. It has to, for the five years, has to increase a hundred and fifty million. The failsafe in this bill is, is that it will not cut funds to education. We have to increase seven hundred fifty million, if we don’t the bill’s moot. There’s a lot of people out there that are saying that there’s a possibility that this bill will not move forward, but we have to do something. We do have the lowest taxes of any state neighboring us, we do have the best cities, the best home structures, we have the greatest people and tools and resources. I don’t know what else to do to bring big business here. We’ve had Chrysler move out. Ford closed up and moved out. We’ve had so many businesses that have moved out of state. And if that’s the, the, the issue there, as we have lowest taxes, Florissant, that I represent, is one of the best places to retire. I want to make sure that this continues for a long time. And the only way I could see to do that in the legislation that we have, and the ideas that we have bipartisan sitting at the table, and I believe this was a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately the Governor vetoed it, it made it a partisan issue. I had four, maybe five other Democrats that wanted to be with this bill but just couldn’t go against the Governor. And I had to do something.

[….]

Representative Stephen Webber (D) [file photo].

Show Me Progress: So, how would you, how would you characterize the, uh, the vote on, um, the final vote on, uh, the override on SB 509?

Representative Stephen Webber (D): I mean, it’s certainly shortsighted, uh, to begin with. You know, if, if it’s a good idea it’s something that we should do now. The fact that people pushed off, um, the tax cuts so that they’ll never have to deal with the consequences of their actions, they’ll never actually have to budget, they’ll never actually have face the reality of not funding schools. Um, to me, that, that’s very irresponsible.

Show Me Progress: Would you characterize the bill as bipartisan?

Representative Webber (D): No, absolutely not. No. No, it’s clearly not. I mean, um, getting you know, less than two percent [one person] of the Democrats doesn’t make it a, a bipartisan bill.

Uh, I’ve described it as, it’s like, it’s like boiling a frog. You know, you put frog, a frog in the water and you turn up the heat. And so it feels good at first, and then it starts slowly, by the time you realize you’re burning, you’re boiling it’s, it’s too late. Uh, that’s the way this bill works. I mean it, it doesn’t, uh, fully implement for seven years at the earliest. And so every single member of this General Assembly will be termed out, um, before they have to face the true impact of cutting school funding, of not funding higher education. And at that point, all people are gonna know is there not money, there’s not money for these projects. They’re not gonna know who’s fault it is, they’re not gonna know who to blame, they’re not gonna , they’re not gonna say, oh, let’s go back to, in twenty twenty-two they’re not gonna say let’s go back to twenty fourteen and look at who voted for this bill. I mean, that’s not gonna happen. [crosstalk] Um.

Show Me Progress: Uh, so for, um, and, and, to be clear, the, the, the only way that the, the, the, the bill is reversible is if it comes to a vote of [crosstalk] of…

Representative Webber (D): We have to change the law again, right.

Show Me Progress: Well, you have to change the, and the change will have to go to a vote of the people due to the Hancock amendment.

Representative Webber (D): Correct. Correct.

Show Me Progress: And, and so, there is no sunset clause on any of this.

Representative Webber (D): No. Uh, and, and, they keep saying there’s these triggers and, and the folks that know that, uh, they know that’s incredibly misleading. They know that every year, um, that, the hundred fifty million dollars a year that you have to hit is eaten up very quickly in, in, you know, mandatory, uh, spending for federal match programs, um, I mean, inflation, population growth. It, it clearly will result in a, uh, cut to education funding. And they either, um, most of them know that and they’re just misleading people. Um, those that don’t know  that are just uninformed.[….] It clearly will result in education cuts.

[….]

Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D) – May 8, 2014.

Show Me Progress: So, I want to talk with you about the, uh,  Senate Bill 509, the veto override.

Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D): Uh huh.

Show Me Progress: Um, would you characterize, what, what  would you characterize, the, the long term effect of the bill?

Representative LaFaver (D): Unknown. I think that there are a lot of things up in the air, particularly with the section that the Governor pointed out, that eliminates the top bracket. I think the long term effect, um, is truly unknown. It’s either gonna be bad or it’ll be devastating.

Show Me Progress: Would, would you characterize, uh, any part of the bill as bipartisan?

Representative LaFaver (D): No.

Show Me Progress: [….]  Do you, is there, is, is there any easy way to fix any of the problems in the bill?

Representative LaFaver (D): No.

Show Me Progress: [….] Is there any kind of sunset provision in the bill?

Representative LaFaver (D): No.

Show Me Progress: None whatsoever?

Representative LaFaver (D): No. In order for us to fix it, uh, through the legislature anyway, we would have to pass something and then it would have to go to the voters as a tax increase. And so, if we’re gonna try and fix the, uh, section that the Governor  is talking about we would have to then go back and approve a tax increase of four point eight billion dollars and ask Missourians to increase their taxes by  four point eight billion.

[….]

There are people in Missouri and out who are laughing last.

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)

HB 253: Because those dissolute leeches at the public trough should shut up, that’s why! (August 28, 2013)

Missouri Democratic Party on HB 253: Yes, yes, let’s talk about Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r)…. (August 28, 2013)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates (August 30, 2013)

HB 253: any way you slice it (September 11, 2013)

HB 253: Watch out – It’ll be baaaaaaaaaack (September 11, 2013)

SB 509: once more, with feeling (April 17, 2014)

SB 509: “….We’d like to think that most of them are not simpletons….” (April 18, 2014)

SB 509: Governor Jay Nixon (D) strikes back (April 22, 2014)

SB 509: dueling on Twitter (April 22, 2014)

SB 509: Would you like some whine with your bill? (April 23, 2014)

SB 509: strange gyrations (April 23, 2014)

The Missouri GOP, Evel Knievel and political stuntsmanship (April 24, 2014)

SB 509: the folks back home ain’t buying what they’re selling (April 24, 2014)

SB 509: in a wingnutshell (April 28, 2014)

SB 509: the folks back home ain’t buying what they’re selling – part 2 (April 29, 2014)

SB 509: thank the FSM (or the deity of your choice) for Kansas (May 1, 2014)

SB 509: veto it is (May 1, 2014)

SB 509: Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) Veto (May 2, 2014)

SB 509: That’s a mighty interesting legal citation you got there… (May 2, 2014)

SB 509: “Brawndo! It’s got electrolytes!” (May 3, 2014)

SB 509: You were expecting anything else? (May 5, 2014)

SB 509: not so much these days (May 6, 2014)

The face of shame (May 6, 2014)

SB 509: the moment when all hope for the future of Missouri died (May 6, 2014)

Dude, you’ve got bigger problems than an out of the way blog with dozens of readers (May 6, 2014)

The day Missouri went down the toilet (May 7, 2014)

Dude, you’ve got bigger problems than an out of the way blog with dozens of readers – part 2 (May 8, 2014)

…and now you know the rest of the story (May 8, 2014)

The House was working to approve the conference bills on the state budget today.

Representative Chris Kelly (D) on the floor of the House during debate on a budget bill – May 8, 2014.

Representative Chris Kelly (D) had the quote of the day:

“It’s better to be one step from hell going up, than one step from heaven going down.”

Previously:

My favorite state representative (April 23, 2014)