Recently Dante Atkins reported in a DailyKos article about the “new” Republican strategy for dealing with their woman problem. The remedy for the widespread perception among women that GOPers are intolerant, lacking in compassion and do not understand women’s concerns, according to Republican strategists, is “to ‘go on offense’ on women’s issues.” Unfortunately, however, it seems like many GOP pols have misunderstood and believe that they should instead just continue being offensive, a skill they have thoroughly mastered.

What comes more naturally to the angry, old white men of the GOP than hard-breathing, red-faced hectoring, especially when dealing with uppity women. And that is true as well for the elected women in the GOP, who often seem to be little more than Palinesque angry white men wannabes – even when, as in the case of Ann Wagner (R-2), they try to hide harsh policies by describing them with lots of warm and fuzzy words. Think Todd Akin was bad? Consider Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4) who declared last January that women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term because abortion “robs men of the privilege of fatherhood.” Gives you an idea about who it is that matters in GOPland – and it isn’t women.

Which brings us to today’s vote by the Republican-dominated legislature to override Governor Nixon’s veto of HB1307. This bill will, 30 days from today, increase the waiting time for an abortion from 24 hours to 72 hours after the initial appointment with a doctor – with no exception for victims of rape or incest. Is this going “on offense” or just plain offensive? Many Missourians are convinced it’s the latter:

According to a recent Public Policy Polling survey, eight out of ten Missourians are concerned the 72-hour waiting period intrudes on women’s private medical decisions, and most of them agreed with the governor’s decision to veto it.

The Roosevelt Institute notes that waiting periods are among the types of restrictions on abortion that, ironically, result in “more unplanned pregnancies, more abortions, and more abortions occuring later in pregnancy”:

The Guttmacher Institute reports that already seven in 10 women who had a second-trimester abortion wanted to do so earlier in pregnancy but were unable to because they could not afford it. Economists who study family planning policy argue that the costs a woman seeking an abortion faces do not only come in the form of dollars, but also in the time required to access an abortion. A 2001 study by Marianne Bitler and Madeline Zavodny shows that state restrictions that impose mandatory waiting periods (in other words, a time cost) also delay abortions into the second trimester. A 1994 study of Mississippi’s mandatory delay laws showed a 17 percent jump in second trimester abortions after the law took effect.

Nevertheless, despite its intrusiveness and the potential for unintended consequences, the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Kevin Elmer (R-139), tells us that he believes that this highly offensive legislation will be the “the pinnacle of his legislative career.” He, after all, believes that “life begins at conception,” which is unintelligible gibberish unless interpreted in a religious context which many of us do not share, and which should not be forced upon us just to give the fuddish Elmer and his fanatical cohorts their self-righteous jollies.

If this typical GOP soundbite doesn’t offend  you, just consider the comments of State Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger (R-108) about a similar but even more restrictive bill, HB1613, that was also considered by the legislature this year. (This bill was much worse – among its many reprehensible provisions was one that would have forced doctors to lie to women and tell them that abortion could cause cancer – a claim that has no scientific support.) While discussing the rationale for the bill, Gatschenberger indicated that he believes women shop for abortions in the same way that he goes about buying a new car or some carpet for his house:

Well, yesterday, I went over to the car lot over here. I was just going to get a key made for a vehicle. And I was looking around because I’m considering maybe buying a new vehicle. Even when I buy a new vehicle-this is my experience, again-I don’t go right in there and say I want to buy that vehicle, and then, you know, you leave with it. I have to look at it, get information about it, maybe drive it, you know, a lot of different things. Check prices. There’s lots of things that I do, putting into a decision. Whether that’s a car, whether that’s a house, whether that’s any major decision that I put in my life. Even carpeting. You know, I was just considering getting some carpeting or wood in my house. And that process probably took, you know, a month, because of just seeing all the aspects of it.

Maybe, given the raw material they’ve got to work with, GOP strategists ought to drop the whole going “on offense” idea. The concept is perhaps a bit too vague for nitwits to apply effectively, rendering it dangerous for the GOP. And in the meantime, all rational women need to remember just who it is that thinks that they – and their doctors – aren’t smart enough to know what they need and when they need it.  

—

A bill, filled today by Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 2174

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE GATSCHENBERGER.

6406H.02I   D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the enforcement of federal executive actions.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.145, to read as follows:

           571.145. 1. No federal executive action issued by the President of the United States including, but not limited to, executive orders, memorandums, proclamations, or signing statements not specifically appropriated by the United States Congress shall compel the state of Missouri to expend any of its own funds or commandeer any of its own employees or designees to enforce such executive actions.

           2. Any existing or proposed federal executive action described in subsection 1 of this section that infringes upon the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States or article I, section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court or the Missouri supreme court, shall have no force and effect, and no funds shall be appropriated by this state, and no employees or designees of this state shall be required or permitted to promulgate or enforce such executive actions.

[emphasis in original]

Representative Chuck Gatschenbereger (r), working to keep Missouri safe from whatever.

Or, maybe it’s a requirement when you file to run for the state senate:

UNOFFICIAL Candidate Filing List

Primary

State Senator – District 2

Republican Name Mailing Address Random Number Date Filed

Bob Onder 2090 KEY HARBOUR DR LAKE ST LOUIS MO 63367 80 2/25/2014

Vicki Schneider 429 N MAIN ST O FALLON MO 63366 116 2/25/2014

Chuck Gatschenberger 2491 FOXBRIDGE CT LAKE ST LOUIS MO 63367 477 2/25/2014

Yeah, that’s probably it. No one in the Missouri General Assembly ever files a bill for the express purpose of wasting time and effort. Oh, wait…

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission, for one of three republican candidates in the 2nd Senate District:

C131072 03/16/2014 ONDER FOR MISSOURI Robert Onder 2090 Key Harbour Dr Lake Saint Louis MO 63367 self Physician 3/16/2014 $200,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s commitment.

The filed candidates (to date):

State Senator – District 2

Republican Name Mailing Address Random Number Date Filed

Bob Onder 2090 KEY HARBOUR DR LAKE ST LOUIS MO 63367 80 2/25/2014 12:09 p.m.

Vicki Schneider 429 N MAIN ST O FALLON MO 63366 116 2/25/2014 2:06 p.m.

Chuck Gatschenberger 2491 FOXBRIDGE CT LAKE ST LOUIS MO 63367 477 2/25/2014 1:38 p.m.

The money race – January campaign finance reports:

C081111: Gatschenberger 4 Mo

2491 Foxbridge Court Committee Type: Candidate

Lake St Louis Mo 63367 Party Affiliation: Republican

[….] Established Date: 03/21/2008

  Termination Date:

Information Reported On: 2014 – January Quarterly Report

Beginning Money on Hand $47,360.84

Monetary Receipts + $40,575.00

Monetary Expenditures – $16,032.87

Contributions Made – $100.00

Other Disbursements – $4,355.02

Subtotal     $20,087.11

Ending Money On Hand   $67,447.95

[emphasis added]

C091042: Committee To Elect Vicki A Schneider For State Senate

429 North Main Committee Type: Candidate

O’fallon Mo 63366 Party Affiliation: Republican

[….] Established Date: 01/30/2009

  Termination Date:

Information Reported On: 2014 – January Quarterly Report

Beginning Money on Hand $18,636.25

Monetary Receipts + $33,095.00

Monetary Expenditures – $3,803.41

Contributions Made – $0.00

Other Disbursements – $0.00

Subtotal     $29,291.59

Ending Money On Hand   $47,927.84

[emphasis added]

C131072: Onder For Missouri

2090 Key Harbour Drive Committee Type: Candidate

Lake St Louis Mo 63367 Party Affiliation: Republican

[….] Established Date: 05/13/2013

  Termination Date:

Information Reported On: 2014 – January Quarterly Report

Beginning Money on Hand $80,803.00

Monetary Receipts + $19,260.00

Monetary Expenditures – $28.63

Contributions Made – $0.00

Other Disbursements – $0.00

Subtotal     $19,231.37

Ending Money On Hand   $100,034.37

[emphasis added]

That’s in a whole ‘nother league.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: the term limits scramble (June 3, 2013)

A couple of abortion bills introduced in the House today:

HB 1375

Requires any organization, institution, or facility which performs abortions to make an annual accounting of all funds received pursuant to Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act

Sponsor: Cox, Stanley (052)

Co-Sponsor: Muntzel, Dave (048) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2014

LR Number: 5068H.01I

Last Action: 01/14/2014 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

[emphasis added]

HB 1379

Requires an ultrasound to be conducted and reviewed with the pregnant woman prior to the 24-hour waiting period for an abortion

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (108)

Co-Sponsor: Hicks, Ron (107) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2014

LR Number: 5405H.01I

Last Action: 01/14/2014 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

[emphasis added]

Previously:

SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)

Government as doctor

I thought one of the reasons Republicans hate Obamacare is because some bureaucrat comes between you and your doctor.

I guess they still believe that as long as you don’t have a vagina.

Uh, yep.

The usual suspects have proposed a constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution so that state legislatures would have to approve raising the national debt limit. Yeah, that’ll turn out really well.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 19

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), FRANZ, LONG, KOENIG, DIEHL, BARNES, SCHARNHORST, MOLENDORP, KELLEY (126), FITZWATER, JONES (89), NANCE, NOLTE, BROWN (50), PACE, JONES (117), RICHARDSON, PARKINSON, DENISON, HINSON, ZERR, SCHOELLER, SCHATZ, REIBOLDT, SCHIEFFER, LARGENT, ALLEN, GUERNSEY, RIDDLE, LANT, LEACH, BROWN (85), LICHTENEGGER, GRISAMORE, DUGGER, SCHAD, COX, LOEHNER, BAHR, COOKSON, FRAKER, BURLISON AND WIELAND (Co-sponsors).

0497L.02I

AN ACT

Relating to the calling of a convention proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           WHEREAS, Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides authority for a Convention to be called by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution upon application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several states (“amendments convention”); and

           WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Missouri favors the proposal and ratification of an amendment to said Constitution which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States:

           NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-sixth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby respectfully applies, as provided for in Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for an amendments convention to be called for the purpose of proposing an amendment which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments convention contemplated by this application shall be entirely focused upon and exclusively limited to the subject matter of proposing for ratification an amendment to the Constitution providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until at least two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States have made application for an equivalently limited amendments convention; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this application be dispatched by the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation, and the presiding officers of each house of the several State Legislatures requesting their cooperation in applying for the amendments convention limited to the subject matter contemplated by this application.

[underline emphasis added]

Is anyone in the republican majority in Jefferson City concerned about job growth and unemployment rather than symbolic teabagger legislation? Just asking.

Previously: The Ultimate in teabagger Bills: it was only a matter of time (January 26, 2011)

Peak Wingnut is a myth.

Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (r) introduced a bill which is bound to be a favorite with the teabagger set. You’ve got to wonder, if they have to pay an extra fee for the privilege, about the irony of paying more money to the state to ostensibly protest the state having more of your money.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 307

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), MOLENDORP, LONG, FISHER, BAHR, DAVIS, JONES (117) AND RICHARDSON (Co-sponsors).

0627L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 301, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to a special license plate.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 301, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 301.4035, to read as follows:

           301.4035. Any person may apply for special “Don’t Tread on Me” motor vehicle license plates for any vehicle such person owns, either solely or jointly, other than an apportioned motor vehicle or a commercial motor vehicle licensed in excess of eighteen thousand pounds gross weight. Such person shall make application for the special license plates on a form provided by the director of revenue. The director shall then issue license plates bearing letters or numbers or a combination thereof as determined by the advisory committee established in section 301.129, with the words “DON’T TREAD ON ME” in place of the words “SHOW-ME STATE”. Such license plates shall be made with fully reflective material with a common color scheme and design, shall be clearly visible at night, and shall be aesthetically attractive, as prescribed by section 301.130.

[emphasis in original]

Dudes, do you really think this is a good idea? When the black helicopters land they’re gonna know who to pick up first.

Then, with HB 310, Representative Gatschenberger (r) and his cosponsors bring on the full teabagger:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 310

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), DAVIS, JONES (117) AND RICHARDSON (Co-sponsors).

0052L.02I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 14, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the State Authority and Federal Tax Fund Act, with an emergency clause.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 14, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 14.100, to read as follows:

           14.100. 1. (1) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “State Authority and Federal Tax Fund Act”.

           (2) In light of the continuing unconstitutional federal expenditures, the state hereby reasserts its authority under the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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

           (1) “Consumer tax”, any tax imposed by the federal government on any beer, liquor, wine, or similar alcoholic beverage, tobacco, gasoline, or any other consumer goods;

           (2) “Director”, the director of the department of revenue;

           (3) “Excise tax”, any tax that forms a component of the State Highway Account;

           (4) “Federal Tax Fund”, the fund created in this section;

           (5) “Income tax”, any tax imposed by the federal government on incomes from whatever source derived and shall include but not be limited to all income, withholding, payroll, Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes;

           (6) “Person”, natural persons, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, and other legal entities.

           3. (1) There is hereby created in the state treasury the “Federal Tax Fund”, which shall consist of moneys collected under this section. The state treasurer shall be custodian of the fund. In accordance with sections 30.170 and 30.180, the state treasurer shall approve disbursements as provided in this section. Upon appropriation, money in the fund shall be used solely for the administration of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 33.080 to the contrary, any moneys remaining in the fund at the end of the biennium shall not revert to the credit of the general revenue fund. The state treasurer shall invest moneys in the fund in the same manner as other funds are invested. Any interest and moneys earned on such investments shall be credited to the general revenue fund. Moneys accruing to and deposited in the designated funds shall not be part of total state revenues as defined in section 17, article X, Constitution of Missouri, and the expenditure of such revenues shall not be an expense of state government under section 20, article X, Constitution of Missouri.

           (2) All federal tax moneys collected by the state on behalf of the federal government shall be deposited by the director into the federal tax fund. The treasurer shall disburse the funds on a quarterly basis, less any interest earned on the deposits, to the respective appropriate federal recipient.

           4. Any person liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax shall remit the tax when due along with the federal taxpayer number to the director for deposit into the federal tax fund. All moneys collected under this subsection shall be transmitted to the director who, as a fiduciary agent, shall credit the funds to the federal tax fund on behalf of the person who remitted the tax. The director shall submit to the Internal Revenue Service the names and tax identification numbers of, and the date on which and amounts deposited by, persons liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax so that the Internal Revenue Service can credit the state’s taxpayers for federal tax obligations. Any person liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax who fails to forward federal tax moneys to the director shall be subject to penalties assessed under applicable federal or state statutes.

           5. The general assembly, by simple majority vote in both houses
, shall determine how the moneys transferred from the federal tax fund to the general fund, including accrued interest, shall be used for the benefit of the people of the state. Such moneys shall be used for the benefit of the people of this state only.

           6. (1) If, as a result of any state action taken under the authority of this section, the federal government denies any matching funds or grants or imposes or mandates any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state, the state treasurer shall withhold quarterly disbursements as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection.

           (2) If the federal government imposes sanctions of any kind on the state for failing to enact legislation called for by federal mandate, the general assembly shall consider the constitutionality of such mandate by concurrent resolution. If the general assembly determines the federal government is operating beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers, and is therefor operating unconstitutionally, the general assembly shall disapprove of such actions by the federal government by concurrent resolution adopted by a majority vote of each chamber of the general assembly, and shall present such concurrent resolution to the state attorney general, who shall send written notice to the state treasurer that the treasurer shall begin withholding disbursements under subdivision (3) of this subsection in accordance with the concurrent resolution of the general assembly. If the federal government denies any matching funds or grants or imposes or mandates any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state while the general assembly is not in session, the governor shall convene the general assembly in special session for the sole purpose of considering the actions of the federal government under this subdivision.

           (3) Upon the denial of any matching funds or grants or the imposition or mandate of any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state by the federal government, or upon receiving notice of the general assembly’s determination under subdivision (2) of this subsection, the state treasurer shall withhold from payment all or part of the quarterly disbursement normally disbursed or transferred to the appropriate federal recipient, per occurrence, an amount equal to the total cumulative outstanding amount of the federal denial of matching funds or grants or financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds. The state treasurer shall continue to withhold all or part of the quarterly disbursement or transfer not otherwise disbursed or transferred to the respective appropriate federal recipients until the total cumulative amount withheld from the federal government is equal to the total cumulative outstanding amount of federal denial of matching funds or grants or financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds.

           (4) Per occurrence, when the general assembly has been duly notified in writing by the federal government that the federal government has terminated any denial of any matching funds or grants or any imposition or mandate of any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state, the state treasurer shall resume disbursements under this section at the end of the calendar quarter immediately following such notice by the federal government.

           7. In compliance with the oath or affirmation clause found in Article VI, Constitution of the United States, the governor, lieutenant governor, members of the general assembly, judges, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, director, and all other state officers and employees shall implement this section regardless of any sanctions, threats, court action, or other pressure brought to bear by federal authorities. Any actions by the federal government, its agencies or agents, or the Congress of the United States against any person in this state for compliance with this section shall be considered an action against this state, and this state shall make an appropriate response to cause the action to cease and desist. This state shall take all necessary measures to recover from the federal government, its agencies, or agents, or the Congress of the United States, the reasonable costs of defending the action.

           8. This section shall apply to federal taxes collected after the effective date of this section and, because the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, as provided in Article VI, Constitution of the United States, this section shall be enforced retroactively to repeal any unconstitutional federal mandates that have been imposed on the state.

           Section B. Because immediate action is necessary to enable the residents of this state to retain the benefits from tax revenues derived from the people of this state, section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and section A of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.

[emphasis in original]

They’re doing this with a straight face?

Bonus teabagger points for the boilerplate tenther drivel.

As if intercepting federal tax and fee liabilities from Missouri residents and possibly reappropriating that federal revenue exclusively for the State of Missouri would work? There is the small matter that Missouri takes in more federal money from the government than we generate in federal revenue [pdf]:

Table 2

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures Per Capita As a Percentage of the U.S. Average Fiscal Years 1994 and 2004

Missouri

Federal Tax Burdens

FY 1994 92% FY 2004 88%

Federal Expenditures

FY 1994 124% FY 2004 114%

[underline emphasis added]

And if the net contributor states were to do the same thing?

This is in the same realm as a Michelle Bachmann kind of stoopid.

One republican member of the House appears to have an affinity for introducing, shall we say, interesting bills. Previously: HB 2139, et al: Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger (r) takes it for a spin…

This time, it’s random drug testing for a very narrow demographic:

HB 2326 Requires public institutions of higher education within the state to adopt policies for the random and for-cause drug testing of faculty, staff, other employees, and applicants for employment

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Kingery, Gayle (154) ……….etal. LR Number: 4029L.01I

Last Action: 03/17/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB2326

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

With apologies to Atrios

Think of the economic stimulus possibilities if this bill were extended to every person in Missouri. The testing supplies, the lab personnel, the secondary “pee” market…

The bill:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 2326

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), KINGERY AND BIVINS (Co-sponsors).

4029L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 173, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to drug testing of faculty and employees of public institutions of higher education.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 173, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 173.1165, to read as follows:

           173.1165. 1. The governing board of any public institution of higher education in the state shall adopt a policy for the random and for-cause testing of the institution’s professors, faculty, staff, and other employees, and for the testing of potential new employees as a condition of employment, for the unlawful use of controlled substances, as that term is defined in section 195.010.

           2. Any policy adopted under subsection 1 of this section shall provide for a three-step process:

           (1) For a first offense, suspension without pay for one week;

           (2) For a second offense, suspension without pay while undergoing a substance abuse program, which may be provided under an employee assistance program. Refusal to participate in a substance abuse program shall be grounds for termination; and

           (3) For a third offense, termination.

           3. The department of higher education shall implement rules to carry out the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter and, if applicable, section 536.028. This section and chapter 536 are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly pursuant to chapter 536 to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2010, shall be invalid and void.

Does this bill include members of governing boards? Just asking.

…and crashes.

With apologies to Atrios

It appears that Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (r) is really, really, really, really, really, really (did I leave any out?) concerned about drivers licenses:

HB 2139 Amends laws relating to driver’s license examinations

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) LR Number: 4665L.01I

Last Action: 02/15/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB2139

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

… Examinations conducted under the authority of this section shall only be administered in the English language so that the applicant can demonstrate his or her ability to read the English language sufficiently to understand highway traffic signs and safety warnings. The director shall neither supply nor permit the use of foreign language interpreters in connection with the written and driving tests required under this section…

Because Missouri [pdf] highway traffic signs and safety warnings are unique in the world and written in Shakespearean prose?

The overkill gets even better:

HB 2140 Prohibits the use of language interpreters during the driver’s license examination

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) LR Number: 4195L.02I

Last Action: 02/15/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB2140

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

HB 2141 Imposes a fifteen dollar fee for taking the written portion of the driver’s license examination

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) LR Number: 4196L.02I

Last Action: 02/15/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB2141

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Uh, you already said that.

HB 2142 Imposes a $25 fee for the driving portion of the driver’s examination

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) LR Number: 4197L.01I

Last Action: 02/15/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB2142

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

And you already said that, too.

HB 2143 Revises driver’s license laws to require U.S. citizenship

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) LR Number: 4198L.01I

Last Action: 02/15/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB2143

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Hmmm.

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 2143

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

…302.171. 1. The director shall verify that an applicant for a driver’s license is a Missouri resident [or national of the United States or a noncitizen with a lawful immigration status, and a Missouri resident] and a United States citizen before accepting the application. Notwithstanding any other law, the director shall not issue a driver’s license [for a period that exceeds the duration of an applicant’s lawful immigration status in the United States] to any person who is not a United States citizen. The director may establish procedures to verify the Missouri residency or status as a United States [naturalization or lawful immigration status and Missouri residency of the applicant] citizen and establish the duration of any driver’s license issued under this section….

Because people going through the citizenship process can get that accomplished in just days and they won’t need to drive themselves to the swearing in ceremony, right?

“…Notwithstanding any other law…” Tenther!

HB 2144 Requires driver’s license examinations to be administered in English

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) LR Number: 4159L.01I

Last Action: 02/15/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB2144

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Ditto.

Prochaine sortie.

Update 4: Quoted from ChadLivengood’s Twitter

“Rep. Sue Allen was on Rod Jetton’s clients list. But Rep. Allen says she just had Jetton send out invitations to the inaugural ball for her. / “I don’t know how my name got on the list. He wasn’t consulting with my campaign,” Rep. Sue Allen tells me.”

Of course the client list is exaggerated, J&A was trying to get more money. And the story is on Talking Points Memo.

Update 3: And Rod Jetton will be closing down his political consulting business in order “to deal with false allegations and spend time with his family” (his lawyers words). Not a stunner.

Update 2: Rod Jetton’s mug shot suggests that there were no combs in the Cole County Sheriff’s office last night. And that Rod didn’t pay Tom DeLay for consulting on how to look for a mugshot.

Update 1: RodJetton.org has gone offline, and a link to the Google cache of that page has been posted to replace that link in this post.

Former Representative Jetton is innocent until proven guilty. But realistically, his public influence amongst Jeff City Republicans is gonna vaporize. The Republican General Assembly may be arrogant and overconfident, but they’re not that stupid.

It’s for the purposes of posterity  and public knowledge that the Representatives who have paid Jetton & Associates in the year 2009 (and what they paid for) are displayed for you, the reader, and their constituents to know.

Sue Allen: $214, mailing

Chuck Gatschenberger: $160, invitations

Timothy Jones: $3599.95, consultant services, mailing costs

Shelley Keeney: $788.50, consulting

Rob Mayer: $734, consulting

Brian Nieves: $188, consultant

Don Ruzicka: $189, expenses

Dwight Scharnhorst: $1000, fundraising expenses

Shane Schoeller: $5405.69, fundraising event, mailing/postage, consulting

Jason Smith: $613, direct mail

Steven Tilley: $46806.67, lots of stuff (23 entries, so far)

Will the guy who could be the next Speaker of the Missouri House continue his hand-in-hand relationship with Jetton & Associates in the year 2010? You don’t need a political consultant to figure out the answer to that question.

It’ll be around a month from now before we figure out the 4th quarter spending from candidates to J&A. Will Floor Leader Tilley (R-da plane da plane) top $50K in payments to Jetton in 2009? Can’t wait to see.

Addendum: Reaction #1 is from Shane Schoeller:

“This is barely two hours old. I’m not going to be making any hasty decisions, These are serious allegations that have been made. And obviously, if it’s true, we’ll part paths.”