Under the guidelines established by the Missouri General Assembly in 2021, MOScholars tax credits may be awarded to individuals and businesses that file a Missouri income tax return and make an eligible contribution to a certified educational assistance organization (EAO). These private contributions for tax credits fund scholarship accounts for students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and students living in low-income households.
A MOScholars tax credit is equal to 100% of an eligible donation, not to exceed 50% of the donor’s state tax liability for the tax year the credit is claimed. MOScholars tax credits may be carried forward for four (4) subsequent tax years. The tax credit is not sellable, transferrable, or refundable.
[….]
More than 98% of scholarships administered by the MOScholars program this school year are funded by Missouri taxpayers. And though there are strict eligibility requirements for private-school scholarships, eligibility isn’t checked after the initial scholarship is awarded or for siblings of students who received a scholarship.
The revelations about the inner workings of Missouri’s private school voucher program came to light over the course of a two-day trial in Cole County Circuit Court this week.
[….]
When state lawmakers created the program in a 2021 bill, they set it up to run on donations that are eligible for a 100% tax credit up to half of a donor’s tax liability. In the first three years of the program, donations totaled $33.8 million.
Gov. Mike Kehoe announced in January that he intended to bring a major infusion of funding to the program through a $50 million appropriation of general revenue. This windfall for MOScholars has allowed the state to nearly triple the amount of scholarships awarded this fall.
“If not for general revenue, would many of (the new) scholars be able to receive a scholarship?” Assistant Attorney General Peter Donahue asked the treasurer’s director of programs, Trent Blair.
“No,” Blair answered.
[….]
Of 6,418 scholarships awarded this school year, only 111 are funded through tax credits. That includes the 2,405 students who were in the program last year. So if MOScholars did not receive the state appropriation, the funding would cover less than 5% of the renewal students going into the school year.
[….]
The treasurer’s office uses an education management system called FACTS to review applications and determine eligibility. Haggard asked if the software checks if renewal students still meet eligibility requirements.
It doesn’t, Blair said.
“So a student can receive a scholarship even though they don’t meet the IEP or income requirements?” Haggard then asked.
“Yes,” Blair said.
When a student is eligible one year, the system presumes that they retain eligibility. The siblings of renewal students are also deemed eligible.
[….]
And Brandon Phelps?:
“…Supported and passed legislation to expand MO Scholars giving low income families more options in education…”
“…Of 6,418 scholarships awarded this school year, only 111 are funded through tax credits….”
Our tax dollars at work, for private educational interests.
[left to right] Brandon Phelps (r), Rick Brattin (r), Bruce Uhler.
Rick Brattin (r – 31st Senate District), Brandon Phelps (r – 54th Legislative District), and Warrensburg Mayor Bruce Uhler attended and spoke at “Coffee & Concerns” – a community event hosted by the Warrensburg Chamber of Commerce – on Wednesday morning. Around fifty individuals were in attendance.
Rick Brattin (r).
A moderator from the Chamber of Commerce started with questions for the panel, then opened up questions from those in attendance. The event lasted over an hour and a half.
The complete audio:
.
A question from the audience:
Question: …One of my children has a severe disability. So, my question is going to be asking about how will you, um, make sure and, and a specific plan to insure that we are fully funding our schools, especially in those areas of special education. Um, I fear, based on a previous answer you gave, even as the vice-chair of the Education Committee, that you think our schools have more money than we do. Um, and I can tell you that is not the case. Um, so I am curious how you will insure that we are fully finding our schools, not leaving local districts to cover the gap, and how will you make sure we are not diverting funding away from our public schools, uh, via vouchers?
Rick Brattin (r): Why…I’m just like you, I mean, my, I have a daughter that’s a severe dyslexic. I’ve had to privately pay for years and years of tutoring [….] out of my pocket. Uh, and it has been, you know, transformative to be able, but it’s, it’s a life long deal, but I have to, to continually invest in my, my daughter’s capability to be able to flourish. Uh, and I think every student should have that capability. And that’s why I, I’m perplexed at the, the, the opposition to vouchers. You know, why, why I’m paying out of pocket for something that, that yes, if we’re sending taxpayer dollars, why shouldn’t I be able to have that allotment to be able to go to pay for the education that I know my kid is going to be able to flourish in? Uh, instead of walking into a, a type of school system that, uh, is, is a one size fits all approach?
Question: And our taxes pay for public schools. [crosstalk] That cover all students.
Rick Brattin (r): Well, your taxes, our taxes pay for the education of our students. Uh, it doesn’t state that it’s required that it’s public schools. Now we’ve set up that frame work but that doesn’t mean that the legislature and the people don’t want, uh, the capability to go elsewhere if they’re not receiving a good quality education. I mean, look at Kansas City, St. louis, even Lee’s Summit area that I represent a, a portion of. Where they’re at, at twenty, thirty percent, uh, proficiency rates in their readings and math. What are we supposed to do there? Continue to spend money and send our kids there to, to abysmally fail? I, I think it’s a detriment to our students. And especially those that are dyslexic, uh, or have other, uh, disabilities that are totally going under the radar because the school district just, uh, honestly has policies in place that, uh, allow them to be able to, to not be caught.
Well, Congressman Eric Burlison [r – MO 7] is a perfect example. He’s a great friend of mine. His daughters actually through a school district in, in Springfield were, both of them were diagnosed through the school district with dyslexia. The school district opted not to tell the parents. And not to even do anything to, uh, to remedy, trying to help fix their, the, the dyslexia. Until they took them out, got their private, uh, testing done and then the school district after they, actually, caught that they did the testing and refused to, to give that data to the parents, uh, the school district just basically said that they just, you know, uh, didn’t have to. [laugh] And so, I mean, not all school districts are acting in, in good faith and that’s where I think giving the individual parent that capability to take their money, uh, and, and educate their kids where they see fit. Like I had to pull my kids out of, of, Pleasant Hill. Uh, Uh, the public school district and now they’re going to Summit Christian Academy, it’s a private school, and, and they’re, they’re learning well beyond, uh, the, their years of what they would have received, uh, when, when they were at, it’s a, a public school. [….]
Question: Senator, this is not answering my question.
Rick Brattin (r): But, I, I’m just explaining that, that I saw that the school was failing my student and my kids and I had to pull out [crosstalk]…
Question: So you come from a place of privilege where you’re able to pull your children out [crosstalk]…
Rick Brattin (r): I, I make thirty-five thousand dollars a year [crosstalk] as a state senator. I’m not a [crosstalk]…
Question: In, a community like this doesn’t have the access to other schooling systems or, or abilities to send children [crosstalk] to those other places…
Rick Brattin (r): But that’s what it, that’s what [crosstalk] I, if, if we have the systems and processes in place to where we allow the student, uh, the money to follow the student I guarantee you that that will rise up. But when we have a, a monopoly system in education that doesn’t allow for it, of course you’re not gonna have [crosstalk]…
Question: It’s not a monopoly, it’s public education, thank you, senator.
Rick Brattin (r): well it is a monopoly because your taxpayer dollars are forced to go there and regardless if your student is actually even going to that school district. I’m still sending my money to Pleasant Hill School District and I’m paying for my kid’s education as well, on top of the tutoring for my daughter. So yes, I’m paying twice and it’s wrong and people that can’t afford it, they’re trapped. So, I, I’m the chair of Education [Missouri Senate Committee] and this is one of those things that I am emphatically for, is making sure these, these funds follow the student so they can get out of these trapped areas.
Voice: That’s bullshit.
Voices: All right, all right.
Rick Brattin (r): Hey, if you have a great school district then, then you have nothing to worry about. Nothing to worry [crosstalk]…
Question: If you fully fund it.
Rick Brattin (r): It, it is fully funded. At fourteen thousand dollars per pupil, it is funded….
Rick Brattin (r): …Now, as for the separation of church and state, that is nowhere in the Constitution. In fact the, the right to, to freedom of religion is in the Constitution. Uh, the first public education book in the United States is the New England Primer. I highly advise you to go to, to Amazon or Google or, or Ebay, whatever, and purchase a copy and see if separation of church and state of the first ordained public education book was was not religious. I assure you it wasn’t. That, that was not the case. Uh, so this, we, we’ve gotten to this place in America where all the sudden if, if money is utilized to educate students can’t in [inaudible] of faith. I, I think is absolutely the antithesis of America. Uh, we look at things like evolution being forced upon in all public education. Well, that’s, that’s a religion of science that, that’s been adopted and is forced upon the kids. Uh, and, and we’re funding that. I mean, so, to, to say that there’s not that, that aspect of it, it’s already occurring in public education. It’s just the, the secular, uh, world view which the Supreme Court ruled is a religion is, is what the dominant, uh, religion is of, of the school districts. But again, I am not and I do not want to attack the schools. I just want to make sure that, that parents have that capability, ’cause they know what’s best for their kids. Now, do all parents know, there is some crummy parents, there’s some parents that don’t care about their kids, I mean it, and that, that is terrible but, but, we try to do everything we can do with, and, and to make sure that they, they know that. And that’s, that’s my part in it is making sure that they have that capability, uh, to have access to all, uh, educational opportunity as possible. Now, again, we may differ in how and what that looks like, but I assure you I’m not an enemy trying to dismantle everything. I just, I just want there to be a level of competition that makes us all better. I mean, we, we educate and bring up our children to be competitors in every aspect and every realm of life. And then when we talk about vouchers all the sudden it’s, oh we can’t have any level of competition and so on and so forth. I just think that’s, uh, that’s a huge disservice….
[Note: The New England Primer was first published in Boston between 1687 and 1691. Extant copies date from 1727. All well before there was a United States of America.]
[Note: Amendment I – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” – U.S. Constitution
I Section 6. “….That no person can be compelled to erect, support or attend any place or system of worship, or to maintain or support any priest, minister, preacher or teacher of any sect, church, creed or denomination of religion…” – Missouri Constitution
I Section 7. “That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship….” – Missouri Constitution]
Warrensburg Mayor Bruce Uhler.
Brandon Phelps (r).
Brandon Phelps (r): …Just on a, just on a side note, just something, uh, that was mentioned, and actually, I’ve said this before, maybe it gets mentioned quite often. Um, and, and I can’t speak for the senator, but I imagine that I am. We as legislators listen to you significantly more than you can possibly imagine. The problem is, and I told this to a group a while back, that just because maybe we have voted in a manner that you don’t agree with doesn’t mean that we didn’t understand the legislation. It doesn’t mean that we didn’t listen to constituents. It doesn’t mean that, uh, perhaps, if we haven’t met with you, it doesn’t mean that we’ve met with nobody. Um, and, uh, I discussed this with a group a while back that they just, I think they loved probably ninety-five percent of the things that I voted on and the way that I voted, but there were a few things they just simply didn’t like. And they asked me on those things they didn’t like, they said, well, why didn’t you listen to the people? Why didn’t you read the legislation? How come you didn’t, how come you didn’t understand and educate yourself on the legislation? And I said, so, wait a minute, let me get this clear. So on all the things that I voted in the manner that you like, you assumed I did educate myself. You assumed I did speak to the people. You assumed I did listen to the constituency. But on the three that you didn’t like, you assumed I didn’t read those bills. You assumed that I didn’t listen to constituency, and so I want you all to understand that believe it or not, while we are together right here, and for many of you this is the first opportunity, but for many of you it is not. These events, for me at least, I don’t know about for the senator, um, and so everybody knows, and I, I’m a first year legislator. I will tell you that I was actually just stunned that when session ended how many of these events started getting put on my calendar. I will tell you it’s almost daily. Uh, and when the superintendent told you that we spoke, um, a week and a half ago, we did, for two hours. We, we’ve had an opportunity to speak multiple times. During session he came to my office and we had a long conversations. But, that is that way with everybody. I just would ask people, number one, I want you to understand me. I’m gonna listen to you. I’m gonna hear you. I am going to research. But I would also ask that you don’t make the assumption that if I have not agreed with you on a hundred percent of the issues a hundred percent of the time that I just don’t listen. Because that’s not fair. Because we have thousands, tens of thousands of phone calls and emails. And I actually would tell people that’s one of the things I actually, I, I, I think, I think I told the mayor this, um, I know I told [….] this. That’s one of the things I love most about the job. I’m getting a free education when people come in and share their thoughts and concerns with me. They don’t always agree with me and I don’t always agree with them. But I do listen, I do research, and I do understand that we will not agree one hundred percent of the time on one hundred percent of the issues. It’s not possible. Uh, many of these events I go to, the people in the room, some of them in the room contacted my office or contacted me personally with one opinion, while other people in the room contacted me with another. I actually think that’s what makes us great. I actually believe that you are not supposed to agree with me on everything. And I am not supposed to agree with you on everything. I actually believe that that is what we want to see. Because your competing ideas with my competing ideas make us all better people. I can learn from you. And you can learn from me. But I would only say that that is possible when we have enough open mind to assume that the legislator making the vote didn’t just do it willy-nilly. Perhaps the legislator was listening and did have the info. And at the end of the day we’ve got to vote yes or we’ve got to vote no or we could take the coward’s way out and we could just go for a walk down the Capitol and not be there. I’m always there, I’ve always voted. My door in my office, uh, there are some that are open all day, there are some that are closed during the day. Mine’s never been closed. Uh, and I will tell you, these events, like I say, I, I bet I’ve been to a hundred now since the session ended in May. So we’re listening and I want you to know we’re listening and if you call me I will listen. And if you want to meet, I will meet and we will talk. Because I value it, I really do. I, I just really think that we need to share ideas and I am willing to accept the fact that you’re idea may be better than mine. My idea may be better than yours. But when I vote please don’t make the assumption that I only voted based on my ideas and I did it without any other input….
“…But I do listen, I do research, and I do understand that we will not agree one hundred percent of the time on one hundred percent of the issues. It’s not possible…”
They asked substantive questions which you had difficulty answeringwere mean to you.
Brandon Phelps (r) [2025 file photo].
Don’t be a such a snowflake, it’s actually part of the job. You know, being held accountable by your constituents.
Let’s see, on September 9, 2025 Brandon Phelps (r) voted to approve the Gerrymandering of congressional districts in Missouri and voted to restrict the citizen initiative process for Missouri voters.
We understand those rude church ladies had the temerity to ask you questions about that.
Then, this came in today’s mail, apparently paid for by a right wingnut PAC of some sort:
Oooh! “Liberty.” Ironic, don’t you think, considering Brandon Phelps (r) just voted to disenfranchise voters and restrict their voices in the citizen initiative process?
Oh, gee, the legislative agenda of AFP-Missouri. Did you actually ask your constituents about that? Just asking.
From the announcement by Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe (r) for the Missouri General Assembly Special Session to cover Donald Trump’s (r) Fascist ass:
Johnson County and Warrensburg would be moved to the 5th Congressional District from the 4th Congressional District. To what purpose? Give republicans 7 “safe” of 8 Congressional Districts in the State of Missouri.
Kansas City would be split among three congressional districts:
That is the very definition of Gerrymander.
By the numbers:
Election Results Official Election Returns
State of Missouri – General Election, November 05, 2024, Tuesday, November 5, 2024
As announced by the Board of State Canvassers on Thursday, December 5, 2024
U.S. Representative – District 1 (653 of 653 Precincts Reported)
Andrew Jones Republican 56,453 18.4%
Wesley Bell Democratic 233,312 75.9%
Rochelle A. Riggins Libertarian 10,070 3.3%
Blake Ashby Better 2,279 0.7%
Don Fitz Green 5,151 1.7%
Total Votes 307,265
U.S. Representative – District 2 (591 of 591 Precincts Reported)
Ann Wagner Republican 233,444 54.5%
Ray Hartmann Democratic 182,056 42.5%
Brandon Daugherty Libertarian 8,951 2.1%
Shelby Davis Green 3,941 0.9%
Total Votes 428,392
U.S. Representative – District 3 (325 of 325 Precincts Reported)
Bob Onder Republican 240,620 61.3%
Bethany E. Mann Democratic 138,532 35.3%
Jordan Rowden Libertarian 9,298 2.4%
William Hastings Green 4,013 1.0%
Total Votes 392,463
U.S. Representative – District 4 (348 of 348 Precincts Reported)
Mark Alford Republican 259,886 71.1%
Jeanette Cass Democratic 96,568 26.4%
Thomas Holbrook Libertarian 9,240 2.5%
David Haave Write-in 2 0.0%
Total Votes 365,696
U.S. Representative – District 5 (571 of 571 Precincts Reported)
Sean E. Smith Republican 120,957 36.4%
Emanuel Cleaver, II Democratic 199,900 60.2%
William Truman (Bill) Wayne Libertarian 6,658 2.0%
Michael Day Green 4,414 1.3%
Total Votes 331,929
U.S. Representative – District 6 (443 of 443 Precincts Reported)
Sam Graves Republican 265,210 70.7%
Pam May Democratic 100,999 26.9%
Andy Maidment Libertarian 5,919 1.6%
Mike Diel Green 3,058 0.8%
Total Votes 375,186
U.S. Representative – District 7 (283 of 283 Precincts Reported)
Eric Burlison Republican 263,231 71.6%
Missi Hesketh Democratic 96,655 26.3%
Kevin Craig Libertarian 7,982 2.2%
Total Votes 367,868
U.S. Representative – District 8 (399 of 399 Precincts Reported)
Jason Smith Republican 271,249 76.2%
Randi McCallian Democratic 77,649 21.8%
Jake Dawson Libertarian 7,166 2.0%
Total Votes 356,064
The Congressional Districts in Missouri are already Gerrymandered. Mike Kehoe (r) and the right wingnut super majority in the Missouri General Assembly want to make it worse.
Again, the numbers:
Total Congressional Vote in Missouri: 2,924,863
With a range of total votes among the 8 Congressional Districts (lowest/highest): 307,265/428,392
Total Republican votes: 1,711,050 Percentage of total vote: 58.50%
Total Democratic votes: 1,095,671 Percentage of total vote: 37.46%
Current Party Distribution of Congressional Seats in Missouri (8 total):
Eric Stevens, the Democratic Party candidate in the 54th Legislative District, held a community conversation at the Johnson County Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Warrensburg yesterday evening. It’s an opportunity for voters and candidates to meet and converse in a relaxed setting.
Eric Stevens (D).
Jeanette Cass, the Democratic Party candidate in the 4th Congressional District also met and spoke with voters at the event.
Jeanette Cass (D).
There will be weekly community conversations through September.
Eric Stevens, the Democratic Party candidate in the 54th Legislative District, spoke this evening at the regular monthly meeting the of Johnson County Democratic Club in Warrensburg.
He spoke about his campaign, issues of importance to voters, and his experience at a candidate forum the previous evening sponsored by a local organization. You can read about Eric Stevens at his campaign web site and access his answers to the forum questionnaire.
There are two republican candidates involved in the August primary, one of who has been spending inordinate amounts of money spamming mail pieces on right wingnut orthodoxy to registered voters in the district. And, of course, their signs are all over the place. Because signs.
[….]
Protecting the Constitution – HJR 43 is designed to protect the state constitution from the influence of out-of-state interests by allowing voters to decide if the state should raise the threshold to modify the constitution in the future. The measure would change the threshold required to approve changes to the state constitution. Currently, changes to the constitution require only a simple majority for approval. If approved by the legislature and voters, HJR 43 would raise the threshold to 60 percent voter approval for passage.
Proponents say the increased threshold will help minimize the influence of out-of-state groups that have no ties to Missouri but spend millions of dollars to change the state constitution. The sponsor of HJR 43 said the groups “try to reimagine Missouri in their vision.” He said, “I think it should be in the vision of the people of the state of Missouri.”
[….]
If you’re worried about wealthy interests (in-state and/or out-of-state) exerting undue influence in our elections when they spend millions of dollars trying to overwhelm voters with bullshit ads and mailings then do something about campaign finance reform, fool.
This resolution is just right wingnut dogma geared to gutting the ballot initiative process in Missouri. It’s embarrassing.
A small sample of the witness statements on HJR 43 submitted to the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee:
This proposed amendment is unnecessary, harmful, and misleading. It would lead to MORE out-of-state money affecting our ballot initiatives. It reduces the ability for the will of the people to be our supreme law. Also, the dog-whistle about only citizens voting is the exact kind of unnecessary addition to the state constitution your side claims to want to keep out of the constitution.
I am against changing the initiative process. It works, (witness Hancock amendment, right to farm, the conservation department). Proposed attempts to increase necessary percentages will effectively kill the ability of citizens to directly participate in democracy. This is a transparent effort to subvert the will of the majority of the people of Missouri. Leave it alone.
Notwithstanding that the Hancock Amendment was, and still is, a huge mistake and the Right to Farm was a ridiculous gesture.
This bill makes it more difficult to place and pass measures on a ballot. The people have a right to be heard in the simplest manner possible.
You’d think.
We should not be making it harder for Missourians to get things they want passed in our state. We have passed so many good things the last few years using this process. It’s awesome that these have had bipartisan voter support as well. Making it harder for voters to have their voices heard is unconstitutional and Un-American. If our legislators can’t get the job done then we should be able to get things on the ballot ourselves and lawmakers should not be making it harder for us to so
I believe these proposed limitations of the MO people’s ideas and voices all head the wrong direction. I think voters’ voices should be stronger and easier to become law, not harder with more obstacles, as these proposed rules are attempting.
The right wingnut controlled General Assembly considers that a feature, not a bug.
As a citizen of Missouri and an activist who has spent countless hours encouraging people to vote, I strongly oppose any legislation that makes it more difficult for Missouri citizens to get initiatives on the ballot and/or create higher thresholds for passing ballot initiatives. Missouri’s initiative petition process has been used to represent the will of the people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. This is the only recourse Missourians have when our public servants fail to address issues that are important to us. The current system which entails getting hundreds of thousand of votes to be considered for the ballot is already rigorous (as it should be). Have you ever stood on a street corner or knocked doors in an effort to get support for a cause or a candidate (or for yourself?) I imagine many of you have and thus you understand how hard you work for every issue, for every vote, for every signature. One can easily extrapolate that to the already complex and lengthy process it takes to obtain signatures for a statewide ballot initiative. In other words, it’s already difficult- we don’t need you to make it more so. If Republican legislators continue to support and eventually pass this legislation, they will reap what they sow. An electorate who will easily identify that their Republican legislators have upended the Missouri Constitution in an attempt to weaken the influence of the very people who put them in Jeff City
The initiative petition process is amongst the purest forms of democratic participation. For more than a century, Missouri citizens across the political spectrum have been able to have their voices heard through the initiative petition process. The Missouri constitution guarantees: “The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly.” The process already requires a high threshold of signatures from registered voters to get a proposal on the ballot. Missourians across the political spectrum have used and benefited from the citizen initiative process. Measures passed by a majority – as is currently the case – reflect the will of the people. Making it more difficult – as these bills do – undermines the will of the people. Representatives should e supporting the will of the people – that’s what we elected you for.
I oppose this change to the initiative petition process because it makes it more difficult for Missourians to engage in direct democracy. The recent legislature is notorious for not considering the will of the people and passing policy that harms Missourians in need of workplace protections, social services, and full and fair access to elections. These bills expand our long help practice of majority rule that is defined as 50% plus one. Placing higher thresholds for getting initiative petitions on the ballot and passing ballot measures into law limits the will of the people. It is already extremely difficult, time consuming, and costly to get initiatives on the ballot. Majority rule in Missouri should be maintained and defined as it always has, equal to or greater than half votes cast.
Campaign Finance reform anyone?
Outrageous. Republicans in this state are out of control. Reign it in please.
We already knew that.
Ballot initiatives engage Missourians directly into the democratic process, increase civic participation and investment, and most importantly, give citizens a voice in the policies that govern our lives. Limiting this process is anti-democratic, plain and simple. I oppose this bill.
[….] I have been a volunteer collecting signatures on initiative petitions for the last 40 years. I have worked on campaigns that won, and on campaigns that lost. But I would say that all my work has been successful in that it promoted citizen voter awareness of issues and provided an opportunity for voters to have a direct voice about policies that affect them. I highly value the fact that since 1907 the Missouri Constitution has guaranteed the power of the people to propose and “enact or reject laws” independent of the General Assembly. This House Joint Resolution seeks to weaken that power. Voters from across the political spectrum: conservatives, progressives, moderates and independents have used this important tool of direct democracy. Collecting the required number of signatures is already a difficult undertaking. I have collected signatures in blistering heat and biting cold. I (along with hundreds of others) have spent hours talking to voters outside grocery stores, churches, fish fries, schools, elections, at parades and sports events. I say this not to ask for sympathy, but to underscore how important the tools of direct democracy are to me and to all Missourians. Creating more rigorous standards regarding the numbers of signatures needed, and raising the bar for what constitutes a majority, weaken the voices of the people. These proposed changes shift power toward elected officials and the special interests who court their favor. This is taking Missouri in the wrong direction. I urge you to protect the Constitutional rights of Missourians and vote NO. Thank you for this opportunity to share my perspective.
Participatory Democracy will become a faint memory, if that.
On Sunday the 4th Congressional District Democratic Committee held a family gathering and picnic at Truman State Park near Warsaw. Approximately one hundred individuals, many who are party activists in their counties and the state, attended. Early in the afternoon legislative district, state senate district, and 4th Congressional District Democratic Party candidates took turns to speak to those assembled.
James William, the Democratic Party candidate in the 54th Legislative District (approximately Western Johnson County, including the western half of Warrensburg) and a registered nurse, addressed health care.
James Williams (D), candidate in the 54th Legislative District.
James Williams (D): …There isn’t one of us here who wants to seek this position and do a bad job. I have spent my whole work career of forty some years as registered nurse and as a nurse practitioner. And my core principle is and has been and will be to make people’s lives better. Whether that is in health, that is in, uh, all the things that we struggle with in life. I have found my self, with people and families, helping ort out the issues that face us and all our families. I believe that there is much we can do in Missouri to make people’s lives better…
James Williams (D): …We have fifteen hospitals in Missouri that have already closed. And you can’t run a deficit, you can’t run a business in the red continually and expect a good outcome. I know for my self and my wife who live in Johnson County, and for you in the counties in which you live, our rural hospitals are really suffering from the fact that we’ve not expanded Medicaid in this state. [applause] Those are hundreds of millions of dollars that could be coming in to this state to keep our rural hospitals open. The medical centers in the, our three major medical center areas, they can get by without this. But our rural hospitals can’t. And if you don’t think our rural hospitals are not providing emergency care to people who are not insured or do not have a mechanism by which to pay those bills you would be wrong. Because we are providing that care, so the hospitals are not being compensated for it. And this injustice for access to health care has to end. That is something I can vote for in House seat fifty-four. And that everyone running for a position in this Missouri legislature can change that. If all we ever did was to change that one thing it would improve the lives of everyone who lives in the State of Missouri.
I won’t, uh, go on any farther, but I appreciate your listening. I appreciate your listening to who will follow me and the ones that were before me because we need your help. Almost every one of you will be, go out and vote. But what you can do is you can talk to your neighbor, you can talk to that cousin who never votes and you can talk to them and get them to the polls. And tell them how important it is.
You’ve heard a lot of ideas of what can change in Missouri to make everybody’s lives better. But it’ll only happen if the people who we know can hear my story and these other folks’ story through you.
So, I ask you for that support and I ask you to, uh, encourage them that they might find their way to support important issues for working families, nd people who are retired, hoping to have a retirement, and for those who are disabled.
Tonight there is a Art Walk in my town. I went out to see what was happening and met my representative in Jefferson City, Denny Hoskins. He will be the next Speaker Pro Tem.
I have wanted to ask him for awhile the contradiction between his position on being pro-life and his opposition to Medicaid Expansion.
Our brief exchange below the fold.
We know each. He was going to his office, so I knew the conservation would have to be brief.
I began by confirming he is “pro-life”. He responded that he is.
I then asked: Isn’t Medicaid expansion pro-life?
He said no.
I responded to that “no” by asking incredulously “Isn’t providing health insurance to the working poor pro-life?”
As he goes into his office he says with an ironic tone, “I thought Obamacare will save us all.”
I noted “Medicaid Expansion is Obamacare.” He repeated what he said.
I have no idea whether he is really so stupid that he doesn’t know Medicaid expansion is an important component of Obamacare or not. He will be one of the leaders in the Missouri House.
Given how quick his response came, I suspect he is.
Whatever his intelligence is, it seems Republicans like him will do nothing in Missouri to expand Medicaid and help Obamacare be a success.
