Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
House Agriculture Democrats blindly voted on an unfinished plan without bipartisan input or any certainty of where at least $28 billion of their proposed spending would end up.
Maybe they don’t trust your input. Farmer, are ya’? If not, give up your seat to Nunes of cow farming fame.
What is is jeopardizing your ag subsidies? #HandoutHartzler #welfarequeenHartzler
Is this screwing up your next subsidy? Why are you afraid to post this to Facebook? Too many followers there?
We know you have your hand out trying to scam some more farm subsidies for yourself.
Vicky. [….] NO ONE who voted to challenge the certified election results should be lecturing ANYONE about how to cause “Americans to lose faith in Congress.”
The GQP is the party of traitors and liars, losers and national embarrassments.
Domestic terrorist has concerns.
January 6th, 2021 you lost all faith with a number of us, if we really had any faith left after you eroded it over these last four years. No, you’re losing money and now you are trying to spin it as a bad thing. Cut the fat and cut the crap Vick.
….I asked the current Administration official whether the outcry over family separation had caught the government by surprise. It had, the official said. “The expectation was that the kids would go to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, that the parents would get deported, and that no one would care.” Yet, when it became clear that the public did, the Administration chose not to change course.
Early this afternoon Senator Claire McCaskill (D) stopped by a coordinated campaign headquarters in Lee’s Summit in Eastern Jackson County to speak to and greet campaign volunteers, many who were later going out for door to door campaigning or phone banking on behalf of Democratic Party candidates. Close to a hundred volunteers were in attendance.
And, of course, outside in the parking lot were the usual opposition trackers and costumed actors. Don’t ask.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – Lee’s Summit, Missouri – August 25, 2018.
Senator McCaskill spent about twenty minutes covering a wide range of issues important to working families in Missouri and giving a campaign update to the volunteers.
After speaking to the campaign volunteers Senator McCaskill took a few minutes to answer questions from the media:
Question: …Could you talk a little bit about the drought and your concerns about Missouri right now, [cross talk] [inaudible] can do about it?
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well [crosstalk], the, the, our agricultural community is getting a double whammy right now, um, a drought and tariffs. Uh, it is a crisis, um, that, frankly, I don’t, I’m not sure that the president really understands that many of these markets we’re losing, particularly soybeans in China are not going to be easily recoverable. I mean, this is something we’ve spent millions of dollars, working towards establishing a market for soybeans in China, and now they’re sourcing their beans somewhere else. Well, they’re not going to come back to American soybeans like that. Uh, it will be, um, a hangover that will dramatically affect our state for some time to come. Even if it gets fixed. And it doesn’t appear to me that it’s getting fixed anytime soon.
And, the drought, obviously, we’re going to be doing a lot of work that, to get, there are programs in place to help when we have drought or flood, and obviously, we’ll be monitoring those programs and making sure that those monies are getting out to the farmers, the crop insurance, the other things that they’re entitled to, on a timely basis.
Question: So, a lot of your Democratic colleague are calling for, uh, the delay of Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing. Where do you stand on that?
Senator McCaskill: I’m not sure that, uh, first of all, it, it’s not going to be delayed. Um, I’m trying to avoid all the political posturing on this nomination and keep my head down and figure it out based on his record, based on his opinions, on issues that I think are really important.
Dark money being at the top of the list. Um, I have begun to look at some of his opinions about dark money and I’m concerned. he wrote one opinion that said he wasn’t sure that we could constitutionally limit the ability of foreign countries to come in do issue advocacy. Well, if you notice those ads that are hiding as issue advocacy and they say call someone, that’s issue advocacy and I think most people would say those are political commercials.
So, I’m very worried about, um, what has happened with dark money and that’s going to be one of the focuses of my decision is, is his opinions and what he says in the hearings about dark money.
Question: And you met with him earlier this week [crosstalk][inaudible].
Senator McCaskill: Uh huh, I did.
Question: Is there anything else that stood out to you from talking with him?
Senator McCaskill: Well, we, we spent a lot of time on that. I’m not going to go into the details of the conversation, but we spent a lot of time on dark money.
Question: Senator, you said after the primary that your Supreme Court vote is not a political winner, that there are going to be people in the state that are mad at you either way. How, are you concerned that this could really effect your reelection, that this could be a, a big issue in the race, and depending on how you vote?
Senator McCaskill: Well, I, as I said, and I do believe this, that there’s not a side to take that would be a political winner. Which I think in, it’s one of the nice things about representing a state like mine, you’re never going to make everybody happy with a vote. So what you try to do is the right thing. And be able to explain it. And so I’m going to make up my mind based on the concerns I have about constitutional decisions that have been made over the last decade and that could change with him on the court. And I will, uh, explain my vote to Missourians based on those issues and hope they understand.
Show Me Progress: Senator, based on reports, the administration, when they were dealing with immigrant families, they, the, the reports stated that they, they didn’t really make plans because they didn’t think anybody would care.
Senator McCaskill: You mean about separating [crosstalk] the children?
Show Me Progress: Separating the children.
Senator McCaskill: I don’t know that I’ve seen that report, but obviously that’s, um, that would be troubling. Because I think anybody would realize that pulling babies out of their parents’ arms is never a winner under any circumstances. And, I mean, I think we’ve got to secure peoples’ appearance at court, but there are plenty of ways to do, secure peoples’ appearance at court without separating children from their families.
After taking questions from the media Senator McCaskill remained at the headquarters and continued to speak with and greet individual volunteers. Selfies are definitely a campaign ritual these days.
“…People need to know, all the major policies that have been announced so far by the Trump administration, all of them disadvantage rural Missouri…”
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) continued her face to face contact with constituents in Missouri on Saturday with several events in Kansas City.
The Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus hosted a forum with Senator McCaskill midday. Close to one hundred fifty individuals attended. The Senator spoke for about twenty minutes then took questions for about an hour.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – May 6, 2017.
One of the questions was on Donald Trump’s (r) policies and agriculture in Missouri:
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): [….]
….People need to know, all the major policies that have been announced so far by the Trump administration, all of them disadvantage rural Missouri. [voice: “Yes.”]
Um, the health insurance plan, um, a, a farmer in Ralls County that makes thirty thousand dollars a year and is sixty years old, his premiums would go from about twenty-five hundred a year to about twelve thousand dollars a year under the plan that was passed by the House. That’s because he’s older and because he lives in a rural area. And those two things are a double whammy on their plan.
The second thing that hurts rural Missouri is education. Um, what they don’t, they haven’t figured out, [Secretary of Education] Betsy DeVos hasn’t figured out that the vast majority of my state there is no choice. [voices: “That’s right.”][applause] I mean, most people out in rural Missouri, there’s not a lot of private schools to pick from. There’s a public school system. Period. It’s the beating heart of those communities. And when you cream, when you skim the cream and money from public school it is directly hurting rural school districts so that private schools in the cities can get more money. Um, so that’s the second thing he’s done to rural Missouri.
The third thing he’s done to rural Missouri is his infrastructure plan. His infrastructure plan that we have seen, the only one we’ve seen, depends on private investment. Now I got news for you. Nobody wants to build a road and put toll on it between Chillicothe and Albany. [laughter] Nobody wants to fix a bridge down in Shannon County because there’s not enough traffic on it for it to make money for a private business. And when you do private infrastructure what you’re saying is we’re gonna toll roads and toll bridges. ‘Cause no private business invest in a road unless they’re gonna get their money back. [voice: “Right.”] They have to have a source of revenue.
Now I’m not, Missouri doesn’t have any tolling, and if other states want to toll, that’s fine. But I think we’ve got to make sure that the White House understands that for rural Missouri, for all of Missouri, we need to make sure there’s public money in the infrastructure bill so the needs can be met even if they’re not in highly trafficked areas. Okay.
The fourth thing, and the thing Kay was referring to, is trade. When you do bilateral trade deals and you cut countries off from multilateral trade deals. That causes retaliation. Okay. There is like, okay, you’re gonna do this to us, we’re gonna do this to you. There’s, for every action in the trade area there is a reaction. So, it’s not as simple as going that’s a bad deal we’re getting out of it. It’s what can we get in that will protect our agricultural economy in Missouri. And the, the scary thing about his back and forth on NAFTA in the last week, first of all, not only does that dramatically affect our corn growers and our bean growers ‘cause their number one export is Canada, their number two export is Mexico, their number three export is China, not only is it dramatically affect them it also affects companies like Kansas City Southern, the railroad, the big building downtown with lots of employees. Their stock went down five percent just when he said we’re gonna withdraw from NAFTA. Now, then he went back and reversed it. You know, he said, never mind the day. [laughter] But, this uncertainty with our agricultural economy in Missouri , and that has ripple effect all the way to the very, very heart of both Kansas City and St. Louis.
So, Mexico doesn’t have to buy corn from us. They can buy corn from Brazil. Um, China can, is, they’re about to open up foreign ownership in Brazil, China can buy a bunch of land in Brazil and grow cotton there and bring it back to China.
So, we’ve got to be really careful and there’s no question that our corn growers and our bean growers are in jeopardy with some of the trade policies that President Trump is talking about….
And yet, a majority in Missouri voted for him. Anyone think they’ll figure it out?
The recount for Amendment 1, the so called “Right to Farm” constitutional amendment, has started. The Secretary of State has the Report of Findings available by county. At this point eleven counties have submitted their recount reports:
As certified 8/25/14: 8960 yes, 18471 no
Recount: 8963 yes, 18476 no
Difference: +3 yes, +5 no
As certified 8/25/14: 1547 yes, 506 no
Recount: 1549 yes, 507 no
Difference: +2 yes, +1 no
As certified 8/25/14: 8936 yes, 5721 no
Recount: 8933 yes, 5721 no
Difference: -3 yes, +0 no
As certified 8/25/14: 5015 yes, 2103 no
Recount: 5016 yes, 2103 no
Difference: +1 yes, +0 no
As certified 8/25/14: 1185 yes, 609 no
Recount: 1190 yes, 608 no
Difference: +5 yes, -1 no
As certified 8/25/14: 2471 yes, 868 no
Recount: 2472 yes, 869 no
Difference: +1 yes, +1 no
As certified 8/25/14: 2704 yes, 1662 no
Recount: 2708 yes, 1664 no
Difference: +4 yes, +2 no
As certified 8/25/14: 1346 yes, 1187 no
Recount: 1347 yes, 1188 no
Difference: +1 yes, +1 no
As certified 8/25/14: 2955 yes, 1907 no
Recount: 2955 yes, 1907 no
Difference: +0 yes, +0 no
As certified 8/25/14: 4374 yes, 4294 no
Recount: 4380 yes, 4296 no
Difference: +6 yes, +2 no
As certified 8/25/14: 2068 yes, 1114 no
Recount: 2073 yes, 1119 no
Difference: +5 yes, +5 no
“Yes” gained 25 votes, “No” gained 16 votes. There’s a long, long way to go before this is finished.
The Missouri Code of State Regulations [pdf] has a section, Title 15, Division 30, Chapter 9 – “Uniform Counting Standards” which illustrates the standards for counting votes which may not have registered on optical scanning equipment. As one looks at the examples you can understand why this could happen.
There is a tendency for the vote totals to go up when a hand recount takes place – a counting team (it’s a very rigorous process) can distinguish legally cast votes which an optical scanner won’t register (for instance, a circled candidate name or ballot issue response or a circled “bubble”). And let’s not be too hard on the voters who cast such ballots – they don’t vote every day, and ballot marking protocols have changed over time as election authorities have changed their county’s ballot formats.
What should give us pause is when the totals go down. Think about that for a minute.
Jefferson City, Mo. – Secretary of State Jason Kander today announced a statewide recount of Constitutional Amendment 1, which appeared on Missouri’s August 5th primary election ballot, has been requested.
Kander’s office has created a webpage (www.sos.mo.gov/elections/Amendment1) to make the recount process more transparent and accessible to Missourians. The page will be updated daily at 3 p.m. to show the recount schedule established by the local election authorities, each local election authority’s report of findings, and a summary of recount results. The office will also train a team of staff members that can be dispatched throughout the state if assistance is requested. Per state statute, the recount will be supervised and certified by the secretary of state’s office no later than September 15.
“My goal is to set the standard for an open, transparent and fair recount process,” Kander said. “Recounts are in place to both ensure the integrity of elections and give Missourians confidence in the results, which is why I put an emphasis on new transparency measures.”
According to state law (RSMo 115.601), recounts are not automatically triggered, but must be requested by a registered voter whose position on the ballot question was defeated. Statewide races are only eligible for a recount when results are separated by less than one half of one percent of total votes cast. Of 996,672 votes cast on Constitutional Amendment 1, there were 499,581 “yes” votes and 497,091 “no” votes, with a difference of 0.24 percent.
The recount was requested by Wes Shoemyer on behalf of Missouri’s Food for America. Constitutional Amendment 1 will be represented by Dan Kleinsorge on behalf of Missouri Farmers Care.
Local election authorities will determine the date and time for recounts to take place in their respective counties, and a bipartisan team of election judges will conduct the process. Media may be present to observe the proceedings.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) at a campaign event in Warrensburg – August 22, 2014.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a campaign event in Warrensburg yesterday evening. Toward the end of the evening she addressed the seated crowd (about forty-five people) and then took a few questions. Early on in the question and answer period:
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): …You have any, any comments, insights, uh, questions or anything you might have. We’re not gonna spend a lot of time here, but, uh, we want to hear what you have to say.
Question; Why is that farm bill amendment [“right to farm”] a good thing? [inaudible] it’s not a good thing.
Representative Hartzler: Well, all it is, it’s very simple, it just, uh, says in the Constitution that farmers and [crosstalk] ranchers be able…
Question: From the state, right?
Representative Hartzler: …yeah, that they’ll be, be able to, to farm. And it was a lot of misinformation [crosstalk].
Question: They already have the Farm Act of nineteen seventy-five. [crosstalk] So what, what has changed?
Representative Hartzler: Right. Well, there’s a group. [crosstalk]
Question: I didn’t understand any of that.
Representative Hartzler: I know, I know. And there’s a lot of misinformation out there. People were confused and still are. Um, there is outside groups, uh, the, HSUS [Humane Society of the United States] is probably the main one, that has got a lot of money, and they’re going around and targeting different states to pay people to get, you know, signatures and put on their ballot different, uh, language that prohibits certain types of agriculture, basically prevents the farmers of those, at that state from farming in the way or ranching like they have in the past. And then they bankrolled these huge campaigns. And so there are places like in California, they did that so that all the chickens out there can’t be in a cage. Well, that’s resulted in making it very expensive for all the people who raise eggs and chickens out there. And so now it’s nine dollars a carton for eggs in California. And so, this just, by putting it in the [Missouri] Constitution this, uh, would make it harder for, uh, them to, to try change our laws to come into our state. And so that’s why, you know, being proactive, our legislatures, uh, you know, saw, saw the concerns from around the country and said, hey, let’s, we have a law, but, let’s, let’s beef it up a little bit. Let’s put it in the Constitution that it’s a right that farmers can farm. And, uh, it, it, that way if there’s a legal challenge in the future or they try to it just, give a little more standing to help protect the…
Question: But where, where those, um, talking about the factory farms coming into Missouri?
Representative Hartzler: Just misinformation, it is totally misinformation. There was, they were [crosstalk] saying China’s gonna…
Question: Well, you know what? I, I’m not sure about that because up in South Dakota this happened. People were against it. They kept, they kept factory farms out and it was defeated. But in Missouri it wasn’t defeated. So I think the misinformation is on the wrong side. I really do. Because who wants a big dairy conglomerate farm next to your family farm? This is what’s going to happen. And none of us can fight their corporate lawyers. [crosstalk] And now…
Representative Hartzler: Well, you know, everybody has an opinion on that but the election’s over and, you know, so, uh, let’s go on to a different topic.
“…And so now it’s nine dollars a carton for eggs in California…”
U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service Livestock, Poultry & Grain Market News
PRICES TO RETAILERS, SALES TO VOLUME BUYERS, USDA GRADE A AND GRADE A, WHITE EGGS IN CARTONS, CENTS PER DOZEN.
MIDWEST REGIONAL Daily producer prices are 4 cents higher for Large, 1 cent higher for Medium, and steady for Small. Midwest delivered prices are steady. Next week’s delivered asking prices are 6 cents higher for Extra Large and Large and 2 cents higher for Medium. Trade sentiment is steady to mostly higher. Demand is moderate to instances fairly good on light to mostly moderate offerings. Supplies are moderate. Market activity is moderate. Breaking stock prices are steady. The undertone is steady. Offerings are light to moderate on light demand. Supplies are moderate. Market activity is slow to moderate.
DELIVERED TO WAREHOUSE:
EXTRA-LARGE 102-111 105-108
LARGE 101-110 103-106
MEDIUM 80-89 82-85
DELIVERED TO STORE DOOR:
EXTRA LARGE 109-117 110-112
LARGE 107-115 108-110
MEDIUM 86-94 87-89
Benchmark prices are steady. Asking prices for next week are unchanged on Jumbo, 8 cents higher for Extra Large, 7 cents higher for Large and 2 cents higher for Medium and Small. Trade sentiment is steady to higher. Demand is moderate to fairly good on moderate offerings. Supplies are mostly moderate. Market activity is moderate.
Small benchmark price $1.01.
Shell egg marketer’s benchmark price for negotiated egg sales of USDA Grade AA and Grade AA in cartons. Cents per dozen. This price does not reflect discounts or other contract terms.
PRICES TO RETAILERS, SALES TO VOLUME BUYERS, USDA GRADE AA AND GRADE AA, WHITE EGGS IN CARTONS, DELIVERED STORE DOOR, CENTS PER DOZEN.
EXTRA LARGE 134-146
Nine dollars? Seriously? That’d be some serious retail markup. If the retail price is nine dollars it ain’t because the chickens are running around free.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) at State Fair Community College in Sedalia – August 13, 2014.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a three stop “farm tour” in the 4th Congressional District today. The final stop was this afternoon in Sedalia at State Fair Community College. About a dozen people attended a roundtable discussion about issues associated with data collection and management in agriculture. Most, if not all, of the individuals in attendance were invited participants (and family who accompanied them to the meeting), local politicians, and Representative Hartzler’s (r) staff. We were there, too.
After greeting everyone in the room Representative Hartlzer sat at the table with the other roundtable participants. After brief introductions Representative Hartzler asked those at the table to state what they had to say. Other than a question here and there Representative Hartzler spent most of the event listening to what they had to say. Individuals at the table included representatives of Farm Bureau, another agriculture interest group, local office holders, and the owner of a family owned agriculture data service (based in the district). The roundtable was scheduled to start at 3:00 p.m. It lasted approximately an hour and twenty minutes.
This was an open meeting which was advertised via social media (and I assume by local media, too), yet other than those directly participating or those associated with the participants (and Show Me Progress) there were no other people in the room.
In the past Representative Hartzler has held open town hall meetings with the opportunity for those in attendance to ask questions on any subject. A few of those town halls had been well attended. Given the current restive nature of the electorate one would suspect that an open town hall held now would have very good attendance.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) in the board room at the Hopkins Student Services Building at State Fair Community College in Sedalia.
….IN RESPONSE TO HEIGHTENED CRITICISM over the past few years, the food industry has stepped up its public relations efforts to reassure the media, the public, and policymakers that our food system is healthy and safe. One increasingly common way industry attempts to shape the public discourse is by forming a group that appears to benefit the public. Often these groups claim to represent farmers or consumers or some other sympathetic constituency when in fact they are funded by powerful industry players. Some long-standing front groups have a broad agenda, such as pushing industry-friendly science. Others form just to lobby or conduct public relations on a specific policy for a limited time and then disappear….
MISSION? Its sole purpose to attack Humane Society of United States, as stated on its home page: “to fight back and defend American families, farmers, hunters and animal owners from the growing threat posed by the radical animal rights movement.” [….]
WHO’S FUNDING IT? Appears to be a project of the billionaire Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil and Lucas Cattle Company. [….]
From the group’s web site:
….Protect the Harvest, an education and advocacy group founded by Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil in 2010….
But wait, there was even more money coming in on behalf of Amendment 1, as reported to the Missouri Ethics Commission yesterday:
C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE MFA Inc. 201 Ray Young Dr Columbia MO 65201 7/29/2014 $25,000.00
C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE Missouri Farm Bureau Federation PO Box 658 Jefferson City MO 65102 7/29/2014 $20,000.00
C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE Missouri Corn Growers Association 3118 Emerald Lane Jefferson City MO 65109 7/30/2014 $18,000.00
C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE Missouri Pork Association 6235 W Cunningham Dr Columbia MO 65202 7/29/2014 $100,000.00
C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE Grow Missouri 308 E High St Jefferson City MO 65101 7/29/2014 $15,000.00
“…Today in Missouri, as well as Oklahoma, Indiana, and two other states, corporate agriculture is trying to put their guarantee to farm in state constitutions…” – former Missouri Lieutenant Governor Joe Maxwell.
Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission, for the folks opposed to the “Right to Farm” constitutional amendment on the August ballot.
C141005 07/24/2014 MISSOURI’S FOOD FOR AMERICA Humane Society Legislative Fund 2100 L Street Suite 310 Washington DC 20037 7/22/2014 $375,000.00
They’re obviously all in.
It’s a simple question. Is it really necessary to place a “right to farm” in the Missouri Constitution?:
As if family farms are under some sort of existential threat from public sentiment or government overreach?
If your answer to that simple question is “No”, then former state Senator Wes Shoemyer, former Lieutenant Governor Joe Maxwell, and the Humane Society of America have it right. And you’re also probably wondering how another Missouri politician who is probably running for Governor in 2016 arrived at “Yes”. That’ll probably generate another simple question for you.
“…Today in Missouri, as wll as Oklahoma, Indiana, and two other states, corporate agriculture is trying to put their guarantee to farm in state constitutions…” – former Missouri Lieutenant Governor Joe Maxwell.