President Obama on the Romney/Ryan (r) Medicare voucher plan:

President Obama: ….First of all, I think it’s important for Governor Romney to present this plan that he says, uh, will only affect folks in the future. Uh, and the essence of the plan is that you would turn Medicare into a voucher program. Uh, it’s called premium support, but it’s understood to be a voucher program. Uh, his running mate [crosstalk]…

Jim Lehrer (doormat): And you, and you don’t support that?

President Obama: I don’t. And, and let me explain why [crosstalk].

Mitt Romney (r): Again, again that’s for future…

President Obama: [across] I understand.

Mitt Romney (r): … people, right, not for current retirees.

President Obama: For, for, so if you’re, if you’re, if you’re fifty-four or fifty-five, you might want to listen, uh, ’cause this, this will affect you.

Uh, the idea, which was originally presented by Congressman Ryan, your running mate, uh, is that we would give a voucher to seniors and they could go out in the private marketplace and buy their own health insurance.

The problem is that because the voucher wouldn’t necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about six thousand dollars a year a year.

Now, in fairness, uh, what Governor Romney has now said is he’ll maintain traditional Medicare alongside it. But there’s still a problem, because what happens is, those insurance companies are pretty clever at figuring out who are the younger, uh, and healthier seniors. They recruit them, leaving the older, sicker seniors in Medicare. And every health care economist that looks at it says, over time, what’ll happen is the traditional Medicare system will collapse.

And then what you’ve got is folks like my grandmother at the mercy of the private insurance system precisely at the time when they are most in need of decent health care.

So, I don’t think vouchers are the right way to go. And this is not my, uh, own, only my opinion. AARP thinks that the, the savings that we obtained from Medicare bolster the system, lengthen the Medicare trust fund by eight years. Benefits were not affected at all. And ironically, if you repeal Obamacare, and I have become fond of this term, Obamacare, uh, if you repeal it, what happens is those seniors right away are gonna be paying six hundred dollars more in prescription care. They’re now gonna have to be paying copays for basic checkups that can keep, keep them healthier.

And the primary beneficiary of that repeal are insurance companies that are estimated to gain billions of dollars back when they aren’t making seniors any healthier. And, and I don’t think that’s the right approach when it comes to, uh, making sure that Medicare is stronger over the long term.

Jim Lehrer (doormat): We’ll talk….

“….Again, again, that’s for future…people, right, not for current retirees….”

If the republican Medicare voucher plan is so good why doesn’t it apply to everyone?

I’ll repeat the question.

If the republican Medicare voucher plan is so good why doesn’t it apply to everyone?

A press release from Senator Claire McCaskill (D):

McCaskill Rejects Proposal to Weaken Medicare, Focuses on Jobs

Senator: House of Representatives should focus on job-creation, drop ‘obsession’ with turning Medicare into voucher program

March 20, 2012

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today released the following statement in response to the U.S. House of Representatives budget proposal which would weaken Medicare while providing huge tax giveaways to corporations and the richest Americans:

“Too many members of Congress who told us they’d focus on job-creation, instead seem willing to pull the rug out from under Missouri’s seniors in order to reward corporations and the richest Americans. They need to drop their obsession with turning Medicare into a voucher program and start finding ways to put more Americans back to work.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Congressman Paul Ryan announced his federal budget proposal this morning-a plan which would weaken Medicare by shifting the cost of care to seniors instead of insurance companies. The budget plan would also dramatically restructure America’s tax code to favor big corporations and the wealthiest Americans, while preserving existing tax giveaways such as those for big oil companies.

Meanwhile, McCaskill is supporting efforts in the Senate this week to pass legislation boosting American exports in order to support manufacturing and agriculture jobs in Missouri and across the country. The bill under consideration would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States-an agency that supports American manufacturers and producers without adding to the national deficit.

McCaskill heard from Missouri seniors late last year at town hall meetings across the state, where she discussed her work to protect and sustain Medicare and Social Security. Previously, McCaskill led the fight to pass legislation protecting seniors from predatory lending after holding two field hearings to get input from Missourians. McCaskill was honored by the AARP for her work to protect seniors from mortgage fraud.

###

[emphasis in original]

There is a difference.

“…House Budget Committee Chairman Congressman Paul Ryan [r] announced his federal budget proposal this morning-a plan which would weaken Medicare by shifting the cost of care to seniors instead of insurance companies…”

Yes, please keep grabbing those third rails.  

A twofer!

They never quit. Introduced last week:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BARNES.

2132L.01I                                                                                                                D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 7 of article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to public aid for education.

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

           That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Section 7, article I, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 7, to read as follows:

           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. Notwithstanding this or any other provisions of this constitution, the general assembly may provide grants, scholarships, loans, or other assistance to students and to parents of students to pay for education at any accredited school of elementary or secondary education they select, including religious schools.



           Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A shall be as follows:

           “Shall the Constitution of the State of Missouri be amended in a manner consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution so as to prevent discrimination in the distribution of public funds by allowing religious people and institutions to receive aid on the same terms as everyone else?”.

[emphasis in original]

Why retain the first sentence when the second one negates it? Just asking.

And the ballot description is priceless. Who’d have thought that the oppressive majority of non-religious people in the State of Missouri could keep up their dominance of the body politic for so long until, thankfully, the sponsor noticed this problem and came up with a simple solution. Praise Quetzalcoatl.

The sponsor?:

…He previously worked as….a policy counsel and speechwriter for Governor Matt Blunt…

That inspires confidence.

On January 18, 2011 HJR 10, a bill which would put the defunding of public education on the ballot for a vote in Missouri, was introduced in the House. Vouchers!

If approved by the voters this would gut the establishment clause in the Missouri Constitution which is in, count ’em, two places:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

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.

[emphasis added]

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

[emphasis added]

The bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BARNES (Sponsor), DIECKHAUS AND JONES (89) (Co-sponsors).

0842L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 8 of article IX of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to educational freedom.

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

           That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article IX of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Section 8, article IX, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 8, to read as follows:

           Section 8. [Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any] The parents or guardians of children in this state shall have the freedom to choose any school for their minor children to attend and, should they choose a school outside that assigned to them by geographical location, then shall be provided with a stipend to pay for education at any accredited school of elementary or secondary education in an amount equal to the amount that would otherwise be paid by local and state government for the child to attend the public school in his or her school district. Notwithstanding this provision, no grant or donation of [personal property or] real estate shall ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

           Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A shall be as follows:

           “Shall the Constitution of the State of Missouri be amended to delete the ban on providing state funding to educational facilities controlled by religious organizations and replace it with a provision ensuring the freedom of parents or guardians of minor children to choose any accredited school of elementary or secondary education with the use of public funds?”.

[emphasis in original]

Notice what gets cut out [in brackets]?

Do you suppose that Representatives Barnes, Dieckhaus, and Jones (r) aren’t originalists when it comes to the Constitution? Just asking.

Fired Up! points out that school choice does not improve educational results–according to a study by a conservative group:

  A study being released today suggests that school choice isn’t a powerful tool for driving educational improvement in Milwaukee Public Schools.

  But more surprising than the conclusion is the organization issuing the study: the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, a conservative think tank that has supported school choice for almost two decades, when Milwaukee became the nation’s premier center for trying the idea. The institute is funded in large part by the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, an advocate of school choice.

Milwaukee has had vouchers in place for years, so it’s the logical place to conduct such a study.  The longitudinal data affords facts rather than fantasy-inspired forecasts.

Vouchers don’t help.  Hear that Rex?  Jane Cunningham?  Never mind, they’re not listening, not even to people from their side of the spectrum.

Rodney Hubbard is not only unapologetic about his pro-voucher stand for the St. Louis city schools, and not contrite about taking $30,000 from Rex Sinquefield, he is passionately ready to defend his ideas. 

I interviewed him by phone on Monday about his candidacy for Maida Coleman’s state senate seat.  As soon as I explained that I represented a progressive state news blog, where many of our readers would disagree with his stand on school choice, Rodney went on the offensive.  He was fortunate enough to be a deseg student, able to get a decent education, he said.  Today’s students in the city don’t have that option, what with superintendents in all the surrounding districts refusing to take city students at their schools.

So the city’s poor have no other option than to attend substandard schools.  Those who aren’t poor can move or send their kids to private schools.  As proof that people who aren’t poor flee the schools, he pointed out that 58 percent of the city population is African-American, but 90 percent of the students are.

He asked me how I and others could call ourselves progressives and not deal with the travesty going on in the city, where 70 percent of African-American males drop out before graduation.  Rodney would like to take such progressives on a tour of inner city schools and streets to show them what really goes on.

Hubbard is concerned about the high rate of incarceration in the African-American community and points out that 65 percent of those in prison have no high school diploma or GED.  Obviously the crime and the failure of education are linked, and we ALL–whether we’re Republicans, progressives or indifferent to politics–pay the price of neglecting this segment of society.

Because of the lack of educational options for city students, Hubbard is sponsoring a bill that will ask for tax credits–but credits that are narrow in their scope.  To qualify for the tax credit, a student’s family would have to live within the city limits of St. Louis or Kansas City–in those two locations only.  The student would have to qualify for free or reduced lunch and have a G.P.S. lower than 2.5.

I’m sure some of you will respond to what Rodney said.  I hope he will find the time to answer some of your comments.

I’ll write tomorrow about other topics we covered in the interview, but I didn’t want to bite off too big a chunk today.  This posting isn’t long, but there’s plenty of food for thought and comment in it.

(Next week, I’ll interview Robin Wright-Jones.)

Rex Sinquefield believes that the free market should reign and has contempt for urban public schools that fail their students.  And he plans to do something about his beliefs. 

Before the campaign finance limits were reinstated by the Supreme Court, he spread the long green liberally among both Republicans and Democrats:

  The biggest single chunk – $100,000 – went to Republican Gov. Matt Blunt. Then came $40,000 each to Republican Sens. Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau and Luann Ridgeway of Smithville and Democratic Rep. Talibdin El-Amin of St. Louis.

  Next came $30,000 for Democratic Rep. Rodney Hubbard’s campaign for the Senate. That was followed by $25,000 for Republican House Speaker Rod Jetton’s Leadership Committee, which acts as a bankroll that Jetton can spend on behalf of favored House members.

Rounding out the five-figure recipients were Rep. Jonas Hughes, a Kansas City Democrat, with $20,000; Rep. Ted Hoskins, a St. Louis County Democrat, with $10,000; and House Majority Leader Tom Dempsey, a St. Charles Republican, with $10,000 for his campaign for Senate.

But that’s old news.  Most of that money will likely have to be returned, and Sinqufield has moved on, setting up a system for contributing all the moolah he wants–legally.  As I’ve mentioned before, no limit exists to the number of political PACs that may be formed in this state.  In late September, SINQUEFIELD FORMED 100 OF THEM.  EXACTLY 100.  In other words, he can give 100 times the limit.  So, let’s see, if the legal limit for a contribution to a state senate campaign is $650, Sinquefield can, as of now, give any senate candidate $65,000.

The treasurer of all 100 PACs is Robert W. Schnur, who formerly worked for Carl Bearden (R-St. Charles).  And indeed, Bearden is right in the middle of Sinquefield’s bid to buy elections and harm public schools in Missouri, since his firm is helping Sinquefield lobby and offering him political expertise.

As you can see by examining the list of the PACs below, some will focus on economics rather than on the voucher issue.  Sinquefield’s Show-Me Institute has advocated for a lower tax structure in Missouri. 

Notice also that 28 of the PACs are called “My Job My Wage Ward ___” and each has a different number from 1 to 28.  The city of St. Louis has 28 wards, and Sinquefield has shown an interest in having the city earnings tax repealed.  (That tax provides about a third of the city government’s revenue.)

Last, but not least unsettling, is that Sinquefield has said he wants to form a farm team of future political candidates–people who will run for state rep or senate on whatever platform he supports.

Missouri is up for sale, and Sinquefield may have enough money to buy it.

You can search for the PACs at the Missouri Ethics Commission.

MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC SOUTH)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC NORTH)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC NORTH)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC NORTHEAST)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC BOOTHEEL)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC SOUTHWEST)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC CENTRAL)
MERIT PAY FOR MISSOURI TEACHERS (MPMT PAC SOUTH)
MERIT PAY FOR MISSOURI TEACHERS (MPMT PAC NORTH)
MERIT PAY FOR MISSOURI TEACHERS (MPMT PAC KC)
MERIT PAY FOR MISSOURI TEACHERS (MPMT PAC WEST)
MERIT PAY FOR MISSOURI TEACHERS (MPMT PAC EAST)
MERIT PAY FOR MISSOURI TEACHERS (MPMT PAC ST. L)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC NORTHEAST)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC NORTHWEST)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC HEARTLAND)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC BOOTHEEL)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC CENTRAL)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC NORTH)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC SOUTH)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC WEST)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC EAST) 
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC SOUTHWEST)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC SOUTHEAST)
MISSOURIANS NEEDING EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVES (MNEA PAC STATEWIDE)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC EAST)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC WEST)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC SOUTH)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC BOOTHEEL)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC NORTH)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC NORTHEAST)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC NORTHWEST)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC HEARTLAND)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC STATEWIDE)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC SOUTHWEST)
MISSOURIANS SUPPORTING TEACHING EXCELLENCE (MSTE PAC SOUTHEAST)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC STATEWIDE)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC CENTRAL)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC SOUTHEAST)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC NORTHEAST)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC SOUTHWEST)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC NORTHWEST)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC WEST)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC EAST)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC SOUTH)
YOUR SCHOOL YOUR CHOICE (YSYC PAC NORTH)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC STATEWIDE)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC CENTRAL)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC SOUTHEAST)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC SOUTHWEST)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC NORTHEAST)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC NORTHWEST)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC WEST)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC EAST)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC SOUTH)
PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PPS PAC NORTH)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC STATEWIDE)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC CENTRAL)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC SOUTHWEST)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC SOUTHEAST)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC NORTHWEST)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC NORTHEAST)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC WEST)
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX REFORM (MTR PAC EAST)
MY JOB MY WAGE PRESIDENTS WARD (MJMW PAC PRESIDENTS WARD)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY-EIGHT (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY-EIGHT)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY-SEVEN (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY-SEVEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY-SIX (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY-SIX)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY-FIVE (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY-FIVE)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY-FOUR (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY-FOUR)
  MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY-THREE (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY-THREE)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY-TWO (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY-TWO)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY-ONE (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY-ONE)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWENTY (MJMW PAC WARD TWENTY)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD NINETEEN (MJMW PAC WARD NINETEEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD EIGHTEEN (MJMW PAC WARD EIGHTEEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD SEVENTEEN (MJMW PAC WARD SEVENTEEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD SIXTEEN (MJMW PAC WARD SIXTEEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD FIFTEEN (MJMW PAC WARD FIFTEEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD FOURTEEN (MJMW PAC WARD FOURTEEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD THIRTEEN (MJMW PAC WARD THIRTEEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWELVE (MJMW PAC WARD TWELVE)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD ELEVEN (MJMW PAC WARD ELEVEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TEN (MJMW PAC WARD TEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD NINE (MJMW PAC WARD NINE)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD EIGHT (MJMW PAC WARD EIGHT)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD SEVEN (MJMW PAC WARD SEVEN)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD SIX (MJMW PAC WARD SIX)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD FIVE (MJMW PAC WARD FIVE)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD FOUR (MJMW PAC WARD FOUR)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD THREE (MJMW PAC WARD THREE)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD TWO (MJMW PAC WARD TWO)
MY JOB MY WAGE WARD ONE (MJMW PAC WARD ONE)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC SOUTHEAST)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC NORTHWEST)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC CENTRAL)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC WEST)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC SOUTH)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC EAST)
MISSOURIANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH (MEG PAC STATEWIDE)

Missouri ProVote has this bit of satire on vouchers: