It begins with education.

Medicaid expansion has been facing stubborn opposition from the republican majority in the Missouri General Assembly. Yet, the Missouri Medicaid Coalition, an umbrella group, continues to organize in support of Medicaid expansion at the grassroots level across the state.

This evening in Warrensburg the Johnson County Democratic Club hosted Martha Stevens from the Missouri Rural Crisis Center for an informational presentation on Medicaid expansion and on behalf of organizing for its expansion.  

Martha Stevens of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center speaking on Medicaid expansion on behalf of the Missouri Medicaid Coalition.

According to the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, because Medicaid expansion in Missouri has been blocked in the General Assembly:

Two hospitals in Missouri have already closed, costing 1,800 rural employees their jobs, while other hospitals are being forced to cut back on services. [….]

Without Medicaid Expansion, Missouri hospitals would lose approximately $3.5 billion by the end of 2019.

68% of all rural physicians are older than age 50, and it’s harder to recruit physicians to rural areas because of the high risk of uncompensated care, due to a lack of Medicaid and insurance.

[….]

If Missouri hospitals continue to cut back or close, rural Missourians will be forced to travel larger and longer distances to have access to a hospital….

[….]

Again, who represents the rural areas of the state in the General Assembly? I thought so.

Previously:

HJR 40: let’s give voters an opportunity to put it in the Constitution (February 19, 2015)

* From the 2013-2014 Missouri “Blue Book” available online from the Missouri Secretary of State web site.

Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r) [file photo]

Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 09:37 AM PST

Missouri Lt. Gov says his $86,000 salary has left him ‘impoverished,’ requests daily allowance

by Jen Hayden

Small government lover and fiscally conservative-minded Pete Kinder says his $86,000 just isn’t enough.

[….]

Uh, shouldn’t you have thought about that when you were deciding whether to run for reelection?

And social media runs with it:

Dr. Brad Bradshaw ‏@bradshawformo

Missourians, we ask you-could you live on $86k/year, or is that too close to the poverty line? #PoorPeter [….]2:44 PM – 19 Feb 2015

Tom and Julie ‏@WelovekctjTom

@RyanSilvey any ideas to cover @PeterKinder allowance? Does he have a chore chart? 12:58 PM – 19 Feb 2015

Stanford Griffith ‏@StanfordAlan

#Missouri Lt. Gov @PeterKinder says his $86K #salary left him ‘impoverished’ [….]  Wish I made 1/3 that and had benefits. 3:00 PM – 19 Feb 2015

Holly Atkinson ‏@EditorHolly

Proud day for Missouri. Our Lt. Gov earns $86k a year, and he wants a raise! Average MO household makes $50k/year. 11:16 AM – 19 Feb 2015

Yeah, that went over really well.

Today, from Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander (D):

Jason Kander (D): Eight years ago I was here, at the Kansas City airport. I hugged my wife and parents, said good bye, and left on a journey that would change my life.

I’m Jason Kander and I was an Army intelligence officer at U.S. Central Command’s Intelligence Division. But they needed more soldiers in Afghanistan, so I volunteered to go. Today, I’m Missouri’s Secretary of State. But back then, in two thousand six, I was a soldier just trying to do my part.

The story really begins a lot earlier. My grandfather served in World War Two, and my great grandfather in World War One. They passed on to their children the belief that we all have a purpose, a calling. For my parents it was serving as juvenile probation officers. And at night dad worked as a police officer. They believed every young life had potential and even opened the doors of our home to kids from troubled families who needed a place to stay. Some of them stayed for years and became a part of our family.

For me, I learned my calling on nine eleven when I was in college. After the planes hit the towers I knew I had to do something and it led me to enlist.

In Afghanistan one of my duties was rooting out corruption at the highest levels of the Afghan government. That meant spending time off the base on the streets of Kabul, sometimes volunteering to be an extra gun in a convoy of unarmored SUVs.

I’ll never forget one day in Kabul when a group of children wanted to be my bodyguards and walk me home to the safety of my base. They thought if they were surrounding me the Taliban wouldn’t hurt me. I, of course, couldn’t let them do that, but their courage has inspired me ever since.

When I came home I was elected to the state legislature where I worked to root out corruption in state government, passing the first major ethics reform in twenty years. And I worked with representatives in both parties to help create jobs, eliminate wasteful spending, and balance the budget without raising taxes.

Then as Secretary of State I’ve continued my efforts to reform state government and ban special interest money in gifts to politicians. I’ve also worked with Democrats and Republicans to keep the addresses of domestic violence survivors confidential, to combat human trafficking in Missouri, to help businesses rebuild and stay in Ferguson, and to insure that every citizen can vote without fear of intimidation.

All of this is possible because in Missouri we’ve brought Democrats and republicans together to solve real problems. That’s not happening in Washington. For years, even with our economy suffering at home and our national security threatened abroad too many politicians in both political parties have been more concerned with scoring political points than doing what’s right for our country. And it’s hurt all of us.

It’s why I decided to run for the United States Senate. And I hope you’ll join this campaign.

Missouri has a senator who’s been in Washington for nearly twenty years and has been running for one political office or another for over forty years. For too long he’s been a part of the problem, voting to shut down the Senate, block economic progress, block good ideas just because they come from someone in the other party.

We can’t change Washington if we don’t change the people we send there. I believe it’s time for a new generation of leaders who have come of age at a time of unprecedented challenges and threats to our country and who are committed to bringing people together and doing what’s right no matter what the personal cost.

I’ve learned so much from my family, from my grandfather’s service, to my parents’ generosity and love for others. Now, my wife, Diana, and I have a young son. When I look at him I think back to those brave young children in Kabul who reached out and wanted to surround me with friendship and see me safely home. Washington can learn from their example. And when I’m in the Senate they will.

Thank you. God bless Missouri and God bless our country.

VoteVets, a PAC, wasted no time in endorsing Jason Kander:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FEB 19 2015

[….]

VOTEVETS PAC BACKS KANDER FOR SENATE

“From fighting terrorists to fighting corrupting special interests, Jason’s commitment to service would be a breath of fresh air, in the Senate. There is no doubt that Jason Kander will immediately take on Washington’s broken ways.”

JEFFERSON CITY, MO – On behalf of its over 400,000 supporters, a national veterans organization, VoteVets.org PAC, is today announcing its endorsement of Secretary of State Jason Kander for US Senate. Kander announced his candidacy, earlier today.  

“Jason’s service to our nation in uniform is only rivaled by his service to Missouri, and his commitment to making government work, against great odds,” said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran, and Chairman of VoteVets.org PAC.  “His election to the Senate would immediately signal to Washington that Missouri wants government that works for them.  From fighting terrorists to fighting corrupting special interests, Jason’s commitment to service would be a breath of fresh air, in the Senate.  There is no doubt that Jason Kander will immediately take on Washington’s broken ways.”

According to his biography, Kander is a fifth-generation Missourian, husband, father, and former Army Captain who served in Afghanistan.  His parents were both juvenile probation officers, with his dad working as a police officer at night. They taught him right from wrong and to always fight for what he believes in no matter what. The values instilled in him by his parents are why he felt a calling to military service following 9/11.  

Jason served as a military intelligence officer in Afghanistan, investigating groups and individuals suspected of corruption, espionage, drug trafficking, and facilitating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Jason’s commanders described him as an “outstanding leader” and the Afghan Intelligence Watch Commander said Jason’s “hard work directly resulted in arresting enemies and saving lives.”

As a state legislator who represented Jackson County, Jason took on both parties to pass the first major ethics reform in almost 20 years. He also helped turn Missouri’s once weak human trafficking laws into among the country’s strongest.

Jason won election to Secretary of State in 2012.  As Missouri’s Secretary of State, Jason cut his own budget by over $1 million, while providing more services than the office ever has before. He cut red tape and fees to help small businesses hire and thrive, protected our right to vote, and got tens of millions of dollars for Missouri taxpayers when he took on the Wall Street firms that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis. And he’s led the fight to clean up Missouri’s worst-in-the-nation campaign finance and ethics laws.

Founded in 2006, the mission of VoteVets.org Political Action Committee is to elect Veterans to public office, with a focus on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and hold public officials accountable for their words and actions that impact America’s 21st century troops and veterans. Though VoteVets.org PAC is non-partisan, candidates it backs must support VoteVets.org’s core mission and beliefs.  Since its inception, in 2006, VoteVets PAC has raised about $250,000 for its endorsed candidates.

###

Since the General Assembly won’t act on Medicaid expansion, right?

A joint resolution, introduced yesterday by Representative Jeremy Lafaver (D):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE LAFAVER.

2224L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 37 of article IV of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to the expansion of the MO HealthNet program.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2016, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article IV of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Section 37, article IV, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 37, to read as follows:

Section 37. 1. The health and general welfare of the people are matters of primary public concern; and to secure them there shall be established a department of social services in charge of a director appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, charged with promoting improved health and other social services to the citizens of the state as provided by law, and the general assembly may grant power with respect thereto to counties, cities or other political subdivisions of the state.

2. Effective January 1, 2017, individuals who meet the following qualifications shall be eligible for the alternative package of MO HealthNet benefits as set forth in subsection 3 of this section, subject to the other requirements of this section:

(1) Are age nineteen or older and under age sixty-five;

(2) Are not pregnant;

(3) Are not entitled to or enrolled for Medicare benefits under Part A or B of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act;

(4) Are not otherwise eligible for and enrolled for mandatory coverage under Missouri’s MO HealthNet program in accordance with 42 CFR Part 435, Subpart B; and

(5) Have household income that is at or below one hundred thirty-three percent of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size for the applicable year as converted to the MAGI equivalent net income standard, except the household income may be reduced by a dollar amount equivalent to five percent of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size as required under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(e)(14)(I)(i).

3. Except for those individuals who meet the definition of medically frail, the individuals eligible for MO HealthNet benefits in subsection 2 of this section shall only receive a package of alternative minimum benefits. The MO HealthNet division of the department of social services shall promulgate regulations to be effective January 1, 2017, that provide an alternative benefit package that complies with the requirements of federal law and subject to limitations as established in regulations of the MO HealthNet division.

4. Individuals eligible for coverage under subsection 2 of this section who meet the definition of medically frail shall receive all coverage they are eligible to receive under section 208.151, RSMo.

5. The MO HealthNet program shall not provide MO HealthNet coverage under subsections 3 and 4 of this section to a parent or other caretaker relative living with a dependent child unless the child is receiving benefits under the MO HealthNet program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) under 42 CFR Chapter IV, Subchapter D, or otherwise is enrolled in minimum essential coverage as defined in 42 CFR Section 435.4.

6. The department of social services shall establish a screening process in

conjunction with the department of mental health and department of health and senior  services for determining whether an individual is medically frail.

7. The department shall provide premium subsidy and other cost supports for individuals eligible for medical assistance under subsection 2 of this section to enroll in employer-provided health plans based on cost effective principles determined by the department.

8. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

(1) “Caretaker relative”, a relative of a dependent child by blood, adoption, or marriage with whom the child is living, who assumes primary responsibility for the child’s care, which may, but is not required to, be indicated by claiming the child as a tax dependent for federal income tax purposes, and who is one of the following:

(a) The child’s father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, or niece;

(b) The spouse of such parent or relative, even after the marriage is terminated by death or divorce;

(2) “Child” or “children”, a person or persons who are under nineteen years of age;

(3) “Department”, the Missouri department of social services, or a division or unit within the department as designated by the department’s director;

(4) “MAGI”, the individual’s modified adjusted gross income as defined in Section 36B(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and:

(a) Any foreign earned income or housing costs;

(b) Tax-exempt interest received or accrued by the individual; and

(c) Tax-exempt Social Security income;

(5) “MAGI equivalent net income standard”, an income eligibility threshold based on modified adjusted gross income that is not less than the income eligibility levels that were in effect prior to the enactment of Public Law 111-148 and Public Law 111-152;

(6) “Medically frail”, individuals with:

(a) Serious emotional disturbances;

(b) Disabling mental disorders;

(c) Substance use disorders who are at high risk for significant medical and social costs;

(d) Serious and complex medical conditions; or

(e) Physical or mental disabilities that significantly impair their ability to perform one or more activities of daily living.

[emphasis in original]

The General Assembly still has to approve placing this on the ballot. Maybe it would have a chance if there was something in there about guns, a Canadian tar sand pipeline, or a bit of posturing on immigration.

Previously:

On improving practical utility (February 17, 2015)

HCR 17: What would Sarah Palin (r) think? (February 18, 2015)

“…on February 10, 1954, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan introduced a bill in the United States Congress to amend the Pledge of Allegiance by adding the words, “under God,” to the text of the pledge…”

Eagle Forum Alaska

Monday, July 31, 2006

2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire [link broken]

…11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

…SP [Sarah Palin]: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance…

[emphasis added]

Who would have known that Homer Ferguson was a founding father?

A concurrent resolution, introduced by Representative Mike Kelley (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 17 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE KELLEY.

0883L.01I

WHEREAS, on February 10, 1954, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan introduced a bill in the United States Congress to amend the Pledge of Allegiance by adding the words, “under God,” to the text of the pledge; and

WHEREAS, February 10, 1954, was chosen as the date to introduce the bill by Senator Ferguson because it was the five-year anniversary of the imprisonment of Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty of Hungary, who was imprisoned and tortured by Communists for his sermons exposing the goal of Communism to eradicate all religion; and

WHEREAS, speeches were delivered in Congress by members of both political parties, honoring Cardinal Mindszenty and emphasizing the threat posed to America by Communism; and

WHEREAS, upon introduction of the bill, Senator Ferguson commented, “I believe this modification of the pledge is important because it highlights one of the real fundamental differences between the free world and the Communist world, namely, belief in God,” furthering that with, “Our nation is founded on a fundamental belief in God, and the first and most important reason for the existence of our Government is to protect the God-given rights of our citizens. Spiritual values are every bit as important to the defense and safety of our nation as are military and economic values.”; and

WHEREAS, the vote to add “under God” to the United States Pledge of Allegiance was a unanimous vote; and

WHEREAS, on February 7, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower became convinced that adding the words, “under God,” to the United States Pledge of Allegiance would be the right thing to do after hearing Reverend George Docherty preach that the phrase, “nation under God” was first used in the Gettysburg Address and were appropriate to be added to the United States Pledge of Allegiance because freedom “is defined by a fundamental belief in God”; and

WHEREAS, the first time the United States Pledge of Allegiance was recited was on Flag Day, June 14, 1954; and

WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Missouri General Assembly to recognize and honor such an important date which strengthens the ties of history that bind us to our Christian heritage:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-eighth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby recognize February 10, 1954, as the anniversary of the addition of the words, “under God,” to the United States Pledge of Allegiance.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for members of the Missouri Capitol Press Corps.

[emphasis in original]

“…the vote to add “under God” to the United States Pledge of Allegiance was a unanimous vote…”

United States Constitution

Article VI

…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

“…President Dwight D. Eisenhower became convinced that adding the words, “under God,” to the United States Pledge of Allegiance would be the right thing to do after hearing Reverend George Docherty preach…”

And the point is?

“…it is the policy of the Missouri General Assembly to recognize and honor such an important date which strengthens the ties of history that bind us to our Christian heritage…”

Really?

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

….If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….

“…that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for members of the Missouri Capitol Press Corps…”

What on earth for?

Meanwhile, thousands of Missouri citizens do not have access to adequate health care.

Previously:

Those who ignore history are, well….stupid (October 25,2007)

Oi vay, part 2 (September 1, 2008)

On improving practical utility (February 17, 2015)

Today:

House Communications ‏@MOHOUSECOMM

HCR 12 (Homeland Security) third read and passed by #MOHouse by a vote of 115-41. 5:45 PM – 17 Feb 2015

House Communications ‏@MOHOUSECOMM

HCR 15 (Canadian Oil Sands) third read and passed by #MOHouse by a vote of 125-25. 6:02 PM – 17 Feb 2015

Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D), via Twitter this evening:

Jeremy LaFaver ‏@jeremylafaver

Concurrent resolutions should be printed on 2-ply. 6:04 PM – 17 Feb 2015

It’s Missouri. It’s the General Assembly. We rest our case.

Senator Roy Blunt (r), via Twitter,

Senator Roy Blunt ‏@RoyBlunt

After careful review, I have decided to oppose Pres Obama’s DOD & DOJ nominees. Unfortunately, I believe both will uphold his flawed agenda. 12:05 PM – 12 Feb 2015

2008. 2012.

Some of the responses:

Angry Pens Gnome ‏@AngryPensGnome

@RoyBlunt Careful review. That’s hilarious, man. Just try a little honesty. You didn’t give them a second thought. What a joke. 12:13 PM – 12 Feb 2015

Not buying it.

Not holding anything back:

Ned ‏@nedmiller

@RoyBlunt how long are you going to keep being an obstructionist? Do something besides block the President. Yes, he’s black. Get over it. 12:20 PM – 12 Feb 2015

Skepticism:

Larry Bilyeu ‏@KutKu_Slayer

@RoyBlunt lol. You always oppose anything Obama puts forward. You don’t need to pretend like you actually considered otherwise. 12:35 PM – 12 Feb 2015

From an editor:

Zach Weaver ‏@ZachWeaver85

@RoyBlunt After careful review, I’ve decided to continue the Republican strategy of obstruction rather than effectively governing. Fixed it 1:22 PM – 12 Feb 2015

Blunt!:

carl klopfenstine ‏@Carl23b4

@RoyBlunt You decided to oppose Obama in 2008 period.. 2:02 PM – 12 Feb 2015

Sharon Williamson ‏@shay1kaye

@RoyBlunt after careful review my a$$. What did you review and why is this your position? crickets 2:08 PM – 12 Feb 2015

You’ve just got to love social media.

The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, plans to speak to the joint Houses of the United States Congress on March 3. He was invited by House Speaker John Boehner who cooked the event up with the help of the Israeli ambassador, John Dermer, an American by birth, and a former Republican Party operative who by all accounts remains “deeply connected in Republican politics in America.” The topic of the speech will be the ongoing nuclear negotiations between the U.S and Iran. Netanyahyu wants to derail the talks; some Republicans want to derail the negotiations, still more Republicans want to derail the President.

Vice-President Biden won’t be attending. Pointedly. According to the latest count I could find, a “whip” list published by The Hill, three Democratic senators and nineteen Democratic members of the House have committed to not attending. Pointedly. Others are still “on the fence,” and not committing either way. Still others are planning to attend while voicing strong criticism of the event.

I can’t find the names of any of Missouri’s Democratic congressional delegation under any of the headings used by The Hill’s list: “Skipping,” “Attending,” or “On the fence.” Are they hoping it will all just go away? Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have denounced the speech and reportedly many CBC members are not going although they are also not taking an official position – perhaps Reps. Clay and Cleaver, both members of the CBC, are among those yet to announce? As for Claire McCaskill, perhaps she’s playing coy yet again, hoping to get by without declaring herself?

But, you say, Netanyahu is only giving a little talk and we all know talk is cheap. So why is it important whether or not our federal representatives plan to attend? Short version: The invitation to give the speech bypassed the White House, a serious breech of protocol clearly indicating that the entire event is intended to be a poke in the President’s eye; it politicizes the relationship between Israel and the United States as never before; and it endangers the diplomatic efforts to curtail Iran’s nuclear program without resorting to a war that would be a total disaster for the region and for the United States. Oh, and Netanyau wants to play the big, tough man in the U.S. prior to an upcoming Israeli election.

In the words of James Fallows in The Atlantic:

(a) the idea of a foreign leader being invited to criticize existing U.S. foreign policy before a joint meeting of Congress, something that has never happened before; or

(b) the specific critique Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to advance in this setting, which, based on his statements over the past decade, is likely to involve such impossible conditions and strictures for an “acceptable” deal with Iran as to torpedo the negotiations. Not to mention …

(c) the idea that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations merits serious consideration for either the U.S. or Israel.

This last point refers to the fact that Netanyahu wants the U.S. to seriously tighten the screws on Iran and there are those who argue that what he’d really, really  like is for the U.S. to mount a military offensive against Iran.

Nor is this Israel-related issue likely to bite, which is to say that opposition to the speech will be difficult to spin as anti-Israeli bias – although such efforts are already underway, what Politico calls the “backlash to the backlash.”  All but one of the twenty-seven Jewish members of the  House of Representatives are Democrats; to date only fourteen have indicated that they will attend the speech. Of those 14 attending, most have also issued comments critical of the event, along with other, non-Jewish Democrats who have decided to attend. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and Commentary Magazine have voiced discomfort with the event. J Street, the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobbying group, has launched a petition that has garnered 20,000 signatures affirming that Netanyahu “cannot claim any mandate to speak for Jews in the United States.” Nor is Netanyahu’s move playing well in Israel.

But all this frenzied back and forth leaves me with just one question: Why aren’t our Missouri Democrats willing to come out of the Bibi closet? I for one would like to see them out in the light of day. Democrat – and Jewish – Rep. John Yarmouth (KY), gets to the heart of the problem in a statement explaining why he will not be attending the talk:

Congress has a broader responsibility than the security interests of Israel. While it certainly is important that we understand the Israeli perspective, the American people will hear only Netanyahu’s perspective, creating a public perception that could undermine a broadly supported resolution to the Iranian nuclear situation.

The Prime Minister’s appearance will be construed by many to infer congressional support for his position as opposed to US policy.

I do not want my respectful attendance to in any way imply support for his position.

So which Missouri Democrats are willing to support Bibi Netanyahu over the President of their own country? Even if they choose to attend, I’d like to hear them take a stand on the substance of the controversy. And just let me add that it is a very sad day in which we don’t even need to ask that question about the other dominant political party.

UPDATE:  Rep. Cleaver’s name has been added to the whip list under the heading “On the fence,” with the following statement:

“The speech is still several weeks out. We do not set the Congressman’s schedule that far in advance,” said press secretary Mary Petrovic

.

Well, it’s something, and something’s better than nothing, right?

*Edited slightly on 2/15, 1:40 am; last two paragraphs added after inadvertent omission.



 

The 2016 gubernatorial campaign money keeps rolling in.

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C031159 02/14/2015 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Robert D Blitz 61 Portland Drive Frontenac MO 63131 Self Attorney 2/12/2015 $12,500.00

C031159 02/14/2015 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas City PAC For Missouri 2301 Main Street Kansas City MO 64108 2/12/2015 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Sorting it all out (January 12, 2015)

Campaign Finance: it’s so quiet… (February 9, 2015)

Campaign Finance: it has been quiet (February 12,2015)

State Auditor Tom Schweich (r), declared candidate for governor in 2016, via Twitter on “right to get paid less” legislation passed by the republican controlled House:

Tom Schweich ‏@TomSchweichMO

Congratulations to the Republican House and Speaker @johndiehljr for passing #RTW. If I was Governor I’d sign it into law. – TS 8:28 AM – 13 Feb 2015

Ah, sucking up to the corporatist wing of the republican party there.

Others noticed, too:

Alexandra ‏@aliemalie

But you’re not, never will be. #MOLeg [….] 9:05 PM – 13 Feb 2015

That left a mark.

Manley Firmness ‏@ManFirmness

MT @TomSchweichMO: Congratulations to the Republican House for passing #RTW. // You’re welcome. Divided workers easier to screw. 9:10 PM – 13 Feb 2015

There is a method…