So how do we know that Obamacare is a success? There’s all the standard measures: enrollment numbers, decreases in uninsured, stable or dropping medical costs, deficit savings, etc. – which are all looking great, by the way. And then there’s Kit Bond’s recent Op-Ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

An editorial note at the end of the post, notes that Bond’s lobbying firm has taken on the thankless task of promoting the Obamacare Medicare expansion – an expansion that the obdurate, anti-Obama, ideologically-blindered State Legislature just won’t countenance (if you listen carefully you just might hear the sound of tiny stamping feet and spluttering screams of “no, no, we won’t, you can’t make us” echoing off in the distance). The Op-Ed reveals Bond’s strategy for dealing with the ferocious anti-Obama-on-funny-but-misguided-principle crowd in and out of the legislature: pretend that Medicaid expansion has nothing to do with the loathsome program.

The first thing you will note about the Op-Ed is it’s evasiveness. It only mentions the Medicaid expansion once, near the end of the piece, and only equates it with the Obamacare legislation obliquely. Instead, Bond, cleverly cries a few tears over the problem of hospital closings in Missouri, problems he attributes mostly to “Obamacare-mandated cuts in funds hospitals receive for uncompensated care – the care hospitals are required by law to provide regardless of folks’ ability to pay.”

Since Bond knows his audience very well, he fails to point out that these hospital closings could far more honestly be attributed to the failure of the legislature to accept the Medicaid expansion funds offered through Obamacare, funds for care which was intended to take the place of the emergency room as the main mechanism for care of the uninsured and so offset the loss of federal emergency care dollars – and emergency room care is, incidentally, a far more costly and inefficient way of dealing with the uninsured than granting insurance through Medicaid. Aren’t Republicans supposed to be the financially responsible ones?

Instead Bond argues that the answer to the loss of these funds is to enable hospital mergers as a way to keep the hospitals pinched by the loss of emergency room funds functioning in underserved communities. And then he decries the fact that the Federal Trade Commisison (FTC) review process, which has the power to okay or deep-six a proposed merger, is, guess what, thorough. Or, the short version, the FTC does what it’s supposed to do and Bond knows that that gets his intended audience hot under the collar because, you know, big government:

Despite helping to create the problem for hospitals with expensive new mandates and cuts to reimbursements, the federal government is now making it difficult for these hospitals to deploy this private-sector solution. Currently, the Federal Trade Commission is moving painfully slow to evaluate any proposed merger or system expansion. Reviewing applications through the narrow lens of a century-old anti-trust law, the FTC is taking months or even years of bureaucratic analysis to approve these hospital partnerships – often too late for a community on the brink of losing its only hospital and largest employer.

Despite Bond’s anti-Obamacare, anti-FTC song-and-dance, Obamacare has actually been fueling hospital consolidation. But, Bond’s encomium to the merged entity that became  BJC HealthCare in the St. Louis area offers only one view of the possible outcomes of such mergers. Ill-considered consolidations have the potential to raise consumer prices, create physical access problems, as well as barriers to access to reproductive health services. As an article in Becker’s Hospital Review points out, there are a number of factors that determine whether a merger will be benign or harmful. Hence the FTC review process. It’s there to protects us, the consumers of health services – something Republicans don’t seem to understand or care about.

But of course, this whole, lengthy argument is not the real point of Bond’s Op-Ed, and is stealthily followed by this little tidbit:

Inaction by legislators in Jefferson City is also putting our health care safety net in Missouri at risk. State Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, has proposed a solution to reform our state’s Medicaid program that would increase access to care for hardworking Missourians, protect our health care safety net in rural and urban communities, and safeguard the state’s budget.

Unfortunately, anger over Obamacare has confused the issue, and right now, legislators are refusing to consider this common-sense solution … .

Senator Silvey’s proposal? Simply a way to try to make Obamacare Medicaid expansion somewhat palatable to the GOP heads-up-their-backsides contingent of the state lege. Such expansion, all by itself, could take care of the squeeze that the loss of federal emergency room dollars creates for hospitals. But – and here’s the magic of Bond’s rhetoric – in this article, it’s been aligned with “common-sense,” GOP-acceptable solutions to healthcare problems that Bond alleges to have been caused by that big winger bogey, big government, including – wait for it – Obamacare itself. One could read this article and leave persuaded that Silvey’s proposals have nothing to do with Obamacare and are only exciting opposition because the tentacles of evil Obamacare have confused the thinking of the poor souls in the Missouri capital.

Wow! Talk about tangled logic. Kit Bond, I salute you.

What this tells us is that conservatives who are capable of distinguishing their front from their backsides, know that Obamacare is a success and that now is the time to get Missouri in on it and let Missourians share that success. The deviousness of this piece of casuistry also reaffirms that reasonable conservatives also understand the real reason that Missourians don’t have this benefit – unbalanced, hysterical hatred of Barack Obama on the part of GOPers who can’t accept the failure of the dream of the conservative Reich that took root during the Bush years, and on the part of constituents who either fear and hate the black man in the white house, mostly because of that black-white dichotomy, or who credulously swallow all the nonsense their Foxified leaders have been spewing in their war against the godless, socialist Kenyan and his Nazi hordes.

And the funny thing? Politicians like Bond were more than willing to fan this hysterical fervor; they thought it was their ticket back into power. Now they have to serve it – or, as Bond is trying to do in his Op-Ed, trick the true believers and give GOPers in the lege a way to save face. Because Obamacare is a success and now we know they know it too – they just can’t say it out loud.

From Catherine Hanaway’s “How to become Governor of Missouri” checklist:

1. Goal: Find a simpatico billionaire to pave the roads with gold.

Achievements to date:

— Nearly $1 million dollars from one donor, megabucks political meddler, Rex Sinquefield.

Next steps:

— Ask Rex what he wants; submit bill.

2. Goal: Make nice with GOP crazy wing.

Achievements to date:

— Channeled the spirit of Todd Akin; attributed poverty, depravity and pedophilia to female sexual autonomy.

— Kudos from Constitutional Party, holly-rollier-than-thou, Cynthia Davis who responds to the Akin imitation with thanks to “brave women, like Catherine Hanaway, for having the courage and moral fortitude to speak the truth” about the sluts who “who have been beguiled into making their bodies available to men outside of Holy Matrimony.”

Next steps:

— Continue talking about keeping the sluts barefoot, pregnant and under Big Daddy’s thumb.

— With the understanding, of course, none of that talk applies to educated, rich Republican women who run for office.

3. Goal: Make nice with Missouri GOP power-brokers.

Achievements to date:

Endorsements:

— Former Missouri Governor and U.S. Senator Kit Bond – will put loyalty to former employees and friends over policy differences.  

— Former GOP National Committee Missouri member Ann Dickinson – goes where Kit Bond leads.

— Very connected U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner – all in for Hanaway – and why not since she’s the GOPs A-1 talent scout for women who can mouth the Republican anti-women line without retching.

— State Rep. Ed Emery, ALEC’s main man in Missouri.

Next Steps:

— Take a loyalty oath to ALEC.

— Hit the country club circuit.

4. Goal: Squash the other main GOP primary contender, Tom Schweich, like a bug.

Achievements to date:

— Long Version: Read former U.S. Sen. John C. Danforth’s eulogy for Tom Schweich to get the whole story.

— Short Version: Read TPM’s description of the way the old, political one-two works – or what Hanaway supporters and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Bill McCellan want to call politics as usual.

— Issued statement after announcement of Schweich’s suicide about what a mensch he was … oops! Make that what an “extraordinary man with an extraordinary record of service to our state and nation.”

Next Steps:

— Suspend campaign, lie low and maybe State GOP Chair and former Hanaway oppo researcher John Hancock will take all the heat.

* Edited slightly; inadvertently omitted text added back under achievements on 4th point.

So Roy Blunt finally decided that the chorus condemning Todd Akin had reached sufficient decibel level that he could safly join in. Not all on his lonesome, however, but safely ensconced in a group of other of Missouri’s mainline GOP establishment, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Senators Kit Bond, John Danforth and Jim Talent, who, jointly, want us to know that:

We do not believe it serves the national interest for Congressman Todd Akin to stay in this race. The issues at stake are too big, and this election is simply too important. The right decision is to step aside. …

Blunt, it seems, is also willing to let it be kown that, as a very influential Republican, he has spoken to Akin privately several times since he (Akin) managed to put the GOP’s anti-women policy proposals in the spotlight, “urging” him to, basically,  get the hell out of Dodge.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the GOP has been preparing its 2012 electoral platform. And guess what? Except for the pseudo-medical mumbo-jumbo that half of the GOP probably believes – at least when safely in private – there’s almost no light between what Akin was saying about abortion policy and what the rest of the GOP wants to enshrine in the document that is intended to encapsulate what they stand for:

CNN reported on Monday that the draft of the GOP’s official 2012 platform calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors — the same policy Akin was trying to defend when he asserted that victims of “legitimate rape” have a natural bodily mechanism that prevents them from getting pregnant.

Nor could there be when you stop to think about it. After all, the VP pick, Rep. Paul Ryan, very publicly joined Brother Todd to promote legislation that would have denied federal funding for abortions in the case of “forcible” rape – a somewhat more precise way to say what Todd meant when he was talking about “legitimate” rape. Ryan has also sponsored “personhood” legislation that would effectively give the full panoply of legal rights to a fertilized cell, while denying the rights of the woman involved in hosting it.

And even worse, the personhood part of this radical anti-abortion brew has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Arguably, the “personhood” strategy is even more dangerous than the “forcible rape” ruse to limit abortions. Some critics hold that personhood legislation could be used to even ban contraceptives. Of course, all that was before Akin’s ineptitude turned up the heat, and Romney’s campaign decided that he’d better forget about his former pandering to the radical anti-abortion base and pretend to be “moderate” – at least for now.

The real question for Messrs. Blunt, Ashcroft, Talent, and Bond is to ask how they can unload on poor, dim Akin and still support the GOP platform this year. And then we will want to know if Roy and his pals will ask Romney and Ryan to once and for all, forcefully repudiate their past, embarrassing radicalism – or step down for the good of the party?

Take look at this photo over at FiredUp! of Huey, Dewey and Louie … er, ex-senator Kit Bond, Senator Roy Blunt and wanna-be senator, Rep. Todd Akin (R-2). FiredUp!‘s Shannon implies that Bond and Blunt may have decided to make do with Akin as the best potential candidate the Missouri GOP can hustle up to run against Claire McCaskill next year.  

Shannon makes no bones about her assumption that potential Akin challenger, John Brunner, just isn’t ready for prime time, and I personally can’t see two such cagey movers-and-shakers as Bond and Blunt extending much of a welcome to “loose cannon” Sarah Steelman unless they are forced to do it. This leaves them having to grin-and-bear radical fringe-winger Akin.

On the surface, Christian dominionist Akin seems to be a world apart from two fat-cat Republicans like Bond and Blunt. Of course, the two senate veterans are also realists, and Akin’s ability to see socialism in a grain of sand is not really that incompatible with their ultimate goals as servants of the corporatocracy. The ideological extremes have actually proven to be rather useful in that regard as the Koch Brothers’ utilization of the über Tea Party group, Americans for Prosperity, demonstrated during the fight over health care reform.

There is another dimension to the formation of this convivial threesome as well.  Greg Sargent gets it right when he remarks about last night’s GOP Tea Party primary debate that:

… the GOP keeps spinning farther and farther from the general election median voter every week. And, in many cases, reality – do these folks really believe that the biggest economic problem today is runaway inflation? That Americans are desperate to rid themselves of Social Security? That policies enacted by Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2009 (whatever you think of those policies) caused a recession that began in 2007? That “exceptionalism” is the beginning and end of foreign policy? I know, one expects rhetoric that plays to the audience, and I’m sure that most of these positions and the rhetoric that goes with it is carefully polled and focus-grouped (as well it should be). And that’s the real story here: The audience has been trained by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and the rest of that squad – and therefore a careful, cautious, Republican presidential candidate who is perfectly well-versed in the issues, solidly conservative in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, and knows exactly what he or she needs to do to win the Republican nomination is going to sound like a nut half the time.

The lunatic rightward drift of the GOP is just as true at the state level. Old time realists and money men like Bond and Blunt can read the writing on the wall as well as anybody, and have probably just decided that now is the time to take a deep breath, relax, and embrace their totally nutty inner GOP child, and if that means indulging folks like Akin when they throw tantrums about various species of evil-doers and the flaming, big-government socialists out to destroy Western civilization, so be it.

 

In response to the GOP-led madness in Washington D.C., Steve Benen asks an interesting question:

… where are the “sane Republicans” willing to “stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst”? Where are Bob Dole and John Warner? Why can’t John Danforth and Colin Powell express their disapproval for what their party is doing? Maybe some of Reagan’s old guard, like Ken Duberstein, could speak up? […]

We’re not talking about GOP officials taking a hard line on some random piece of legislation, or nominating some radical for a key public office. We’re talking about congressional Republicans who’ve decided to play a game of chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States – something no American institution has ever done in more than two centuries – and who are fully prepared to trash the constitutional principle next week as part of a hostage strategy gone horribly awry?

Made me think about the silence of Missouri’s “respectable” GOP establishment in regard to the Tea Party debt ceiling shenanigans. (N.B. “Respectable” as I use it here means there is some sense that the person is at least minimally rational and occasionally sincere. Consequently the Tea Party representatives are excluded.)

Let’s start with Danforth since Benen called him out by name. If you will remember, this is the elder GOP statesman who felt impelled to hold his nose and endorse Tea Party trickster Ed Martin in the last congressional election – so I guess there’s  probably no point looking for integrity from this particular quarter.

Compared to wheeler-dealers like Martin, his opponent in the 2nd district congressional race, Ann Wagner, seems to have some slight sheen of respectability left. But notice how she has rushed to grovel before one of the main instigators of the madness, Grover Norquist?

Don’t even bother to bring up the recently retired Kit Bond.  Not only was he in high pander mode before he retired, most of his pronouncements were so sclerotic that it was hard to take them seriously even when one sensed he was trying to do the right thing. He actually proposed using the debt ceiling to secure budget cuts last April. Hope he likes the mess he’s helped to create.

Roy Blunt? The guy’s sane – and he’s on the record for raising the debt ceiling. He’s also on record for not raising it unless we get insane cuts at a time when the economy is at risk from just such a retraction of federal spending.  So far, when Roy walks a thin line, he’s far more apt to stumble down on the side of a Tea Party pander than common sense. The only hope Blunt offers is that he’s so in hock to his pet “job creators” that he’ll do their bidding in financial matters when push comes to shove.

Who else in Missouri can speak for the traditional GOP establishment? Anyone? What are the odds that any of them have more backbone than the quartet above? Surely there are some Missouri GOPers who put the welfare of the country above the welfare of the party, who will be willing to stand up to the brain-dead morons that the Tea Party sent to Washington?

*Fourth paragraph slightly edited for clarity.

Today the Senate failed to invoke cloture and advance the DREAM Act by a vote of 55-41. By Senate rules the bill needed 60 votes to move forward for consideration:

Question:  On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5281 )

Vote Number: 278 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 11:09 AM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected

Measure Number: H.R. 5281 (Removal Clarification Act of 2010 )

Measure Title: A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 55

NAYs 41

Not Voting 4

Bond (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea    

[emphasis in original]

The DREAM Act would have enabled a path to citizenship and productive service for children who were brought into this country illegally (through no fault of their own) and who have lived here for a number of years.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) issued a statement on her vote:

Dec 18, 2010

Statement on DREAM Act

First and foremost, I believe it is wrong to punish innocent children for the crimes of their parents.  This bill would ONLY have applied to children who were brought here at least five years ago by adults, children who were under the age of 16 at the time and had no choice. These are not children who made a decision to break the law. These children were simply the victims of adults who were law breakers.

My faith played a big role in my decision.  Ezekiel 18:20 reads: “The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

Unlike the last time this legislation was considered, this bill was much more narrow in scope. The children that would have been allowed to stay in this country are those who have already been here for five years at the time the legislation is enacted. If someone illegally came to America after this bill was already enacted, they would not be eligible. In other words, this bill cannot be a magnet for future illegal immigration.

Lastly, these children must meet very strict criteria, such as proving themselves of good character during their time in the United States and during 10 total years of conditional residency, which can be readily revoked at any time. The application process also included other rigorous requirements including health examinations, background checks, and the completion of two years of college education or military service.   I know many of the young people that would have been impacted by the legislation would love an opportunity to serve this country in the world’s finest military.

Of course, the batshit crazy wingnuts in the Twitterverse went insane:

@Ed4Congress Will @clairecmc vote for #DADT? Two votes against the will of Missourians in one day? First her YES on Amnesty/#DREAM, now …? #MOSen about 6 hours ago via HootSuite

Uh, Ed, you lost your congressional race in November in an environment that was the most favorable for republicans and teabaggers in years. What does that tell you?

@jeffmw @clairecmc would you allow the childern of bank robbers to keep the money the robbers stole? about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And you probably think that the profits from dumping credit default swaps are sacrosanct.

@chuck1125 @clairecmc your through about 2 hours ago via web from West Central, Springfield in reply to clairecmc

Maybe. And only because there are no longer literacy tests for voters.

@DanME @clairecmc It’s really disgusting that Democrats even tried to jam through the Dream Act and DADT after defeat in election – Stop Lame Ducks about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And, of course, you spoke up when Newt Gingrich (r – serial adulterer) pushed impeachment during the 1998 lame duck session, right?

@jantoday @clairecmc and I guess you care about the unborn . They are innocent too. about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

Because all matters facing the nation should be based on what single issue voters think?

@flyoverland @clairecmc a tough decision. Why I will be voting against you. about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

As if you ever were going to vote for Claire McCaskill?

@RyanSilvey I think @clairecmc #DREAM of convincing Missourians she isn’t a liberal is slipping away. #hcr, #DREAM, #DADT, the list keeps growing. about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to clairecmc

Yes Representative Silvey (r), we understand that you used to work for Kit Bond (r) and that you consider anyone not to the right of Attila the Hun a liberal. We’ll just assume you’ve never voted for Claire McCaskill and leave it at that.

@907611 @clairecmc obviously you prefer illegals over legal citizens we will not forget who to vote out of office when your term comes up again 17 minutes ago via web from Elgin, IL in reply to clairecmc

Uh, if you’re from Elgin, Illinois you don’t get to vote in Missouri.

@RandyJohnsonLA @clairecmc You thinking of the next election? 4 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

As if you ever voted for Claire McCaskill?

There were a significant number of thank you posts in the Twitterverse, too.

Later the motion to invoke cloture (and end the republican filibuster) on the repeal of DADT passed by a vote of 63-33:

Question:  On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2965 )

Vote Number: 279 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 11:36 AM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 2965 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009

Bond (R-MO), Nay  

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis in original]

The rules were waived to allow a vote on the bill this afternoon which then passed 65-31:

Question:  On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2965 )

Vote Number: 281 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 03:02 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 2965 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009 )

Measure Title: A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 65

NAYs 31

Not Voting 4

Bond (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea  

Brown (R-MA), Yea

Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting      

Burr (R-NC), Yea

Collins (R-ME), Yea    

Ensign (R-NV), Yea

Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting

Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting    

Kirk (R-IL), Yea  

Manchin (D-WV), Not Voting  

Murkowski (R-AK), Yea  

Snowe (R-ME), Yea  

Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

[emphasis in original]

That would make it a bipartisan vote.

Sixty-five votes. It passed by a margin greater than two to one. And why was this bottled up in the Senate for so long with an outcome like this?

Blue Girl, via Twitter:

Yes! DADT repeal passes the Senate 65-31!!!     about 5 hours ago  via web  

I sent a message via Twitter in response to Blue Girl:

@BGinKC “Yes! DADT repeal passes the Senate 65-31!!!” | Why was it so hard and why did it take so long to get there with a vote like that?     about 5 hours ago  via web  in reply to BGinKC

She replied:

@MBersin Cuz Senate is broken, like the Polish Sejm of the 18th century. Rules MUST change 1/5/11, or it’s the Dems fault. cc: @clairecmc    about 5 hours ago  via web  in reply to MBersin

Good point.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) had a good day today.

The deal to continue dubya era tax cuts managed to get 83 votes today to get past a filibuster. Fancy that. It appears that only republican legacy legislation can easily pass that hurdle in the U.S. Senate.

Question:  On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to Senate Amdt. with Amdt. No. 4753 )

Vote Number: 272 Vote Date: December 13, 2010, 03:01 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 4853 (Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III )

Measure Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 83

NAYs 15

Not Voting 2

NAYs —15

Bingaman (D-NM)

Brown (D-OH)

Coburn (R-OK)

DeMint (R-SC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Feingold (D-WI)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Hagan (D-NC)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Sanders (I-VT)

Sessions (R-AL)

Udall (D-CO)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

Any bets on the republicans counting this as part of the 95% of the time that Claire McCaskill voted with Obama for their 2012 campaign attack ads? Just asking.

Today St. Luis Public radio KWMU broadcast our Missouri senatorial delegation’s somewhat muddled thoughts on the President’s proposed tax deal.

Claire McCaskill, as usual, says as little as possible as deliberatively as possible:

So, I’m gonna continue to drill down and look at it very carefully, make sure that what we are doing is very stimulative. Frankly, that extra bonus for the multimillionaires, that’s not very stimulative. If it were stimulative we would have had a lot of jobs created the last decade and we haven’t.

Let’s see … McCaskill’s going to have to “drill down” to figure out how stimulative giving a hundred thousand dollar minimum tax break to each American millionaire might be? Somebody should acquaint her with the fact that economists are already on the record that there’s little stimulus to be found in that quarter. It’s actually common knowledge, which is why the Republican rhetoric is so hilarious and will cost them dearly in the long run. And why isn’t she worried abut the effect on the deficit? This is a woman who opposed a program proven to be  stimulative, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, because it wouldn’t be “fiscally prudent.”

Kit Bond, on the other hand, sleepwalks it in:

And I expect if this bill goes through it is going to generate the jobs. And I think it is simple economics 101 and I am disappointed that some people don’t understand that. No jobs are created by raising taxes.

Glad to know that Kit’s got those expectations. Not likely to be realized though; as those of us who actually took economics 101 know, the relationship of tax policy to economic growth is just a little more complex than he realizes. Ample evidence exists that tax cuts don’t always create jobs – if they did, the Bush tax cuts would have done so over the ten years they were in force. Instead, after years of lack-luster performance, we are in a employment crisis.    

Interesting fact: Missouri has 55,000 households that earn over $200,000. It has around 280,000 unemployed. Whose spending do you think is going to do the most for the economy? Believe me, those 55,000 aren’t going to do that much to provide an alternative for the 280,000 who need jobs – real stimulus is the only thing that will do it.

Interesting question: Who are McCaskill and Bond working for? The 55,000 households that would see their tax on income over $250,000 increase? Or those of us who muddle along – including the 280,000 who won’t muddle along too much longer without continued unemployment subsidies. How much longer will we put up with pols who would even consider holding the welfare of the majority hostage to the welfare of their wealthy pals.

Later thoughts …. Reading this over, I am not sure that I made it clear that I think the problem is that our Senators are seriously considering a deficit-busting deal that would give away $133 billion in tax breaks to 4.8 million people on the GOP side, as opposed to $214 billion in tax breaks and other provisions to benefit 156 million people on Obama’s side. It costs too much for the amount of stimulus it will provide, it’s unfair to the working poor, and there are too many risky elements – setting a precedent for raiding Social Security payroll taxes, for one.

An elegant solution: let all the tax cuts expire, come back in 2011 and introduce legislation for a middle class tax cut and let the GOP oppose that if they dare! The only issue that gives me any pause when I consider this suggestion is that of the unemployment benefits extension, but I truly believe that if they were willing to fight, the Democrats could get benefits extended for a lot less cost.  

The nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court was confirmed by the Senate:

Question:  On the Nomination (Confirmation Elena Kagan of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.)

Vote Number: 229

Vote Date: August 5, 2010, 03:30 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2

Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed

Nomination Number: PN1768

Nomination Description: Elena Kagan, of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Vote Counts: YEAs 63 NAYs 37

And how did Missouri’s senators vote?:

Missouri:

Bond (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis in original]

As the struggle over Senate energy legislation, the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act, is getting ready to heat up, the Environmental Defense Action Fund has prepared  ads targeting, among others, Missouri’s Kit Bond:

However, even if everyone who sees the ad contacts Bond and implores him to support the legislation, I doubt that it would have much effect. Bond has already made it clear that he’s glad that he’s had his chance to dance, and he’s just as willing as ever to pay the Big Oil and King Coal pipers (who have supported him to the tune of $446,000 over his career).

In fact, Bond has already stepped up and taken a leadership role in the Republican fight against clean energy legislation. He and his partner in crime, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), dusted off and reissued as new last October’s widely disputed “report” in which they attempted to present clean energy legislation as a “$3.6 trillion gas tax.” Needless to say, this new iteration of the same ole, same ole was just as quickly and easily discredited as it was last fall. A spokesperson for Senator John Kerry responded to Bond’s and Hutchison’s latest effort to cast clean energy legislation as an “energy tax” with the following comment:

The only thing Senator Bond and Senator Hutchison have to worry about today is if we start taxing bad math and misinformation, because it could cost them billions.

Actually, the American Power Act proposes relief and refund programs that would mitigate the impact of nearly 69 percent of the carbon fees it would impose. Numerous studies show that the legislation would cost relatively little – for instance, according to EPA modeling results, it would add between $80 to $150 a year to the average household budget. As Senator Lieberman put it:

“There’ll be some people who will want to demagogue that politically, but that’s less than $1 a day,” Lieberman told reporters. “Is the American household willing to pay less than $1 so we don’t have to buy oil from foreign countries, so we can create millions of new jobs, so we can clean up our environment? I think the answer is going to be yes.”

Ah yes, demagoguery. And, of course, Senator Lieberman ought to remember that “yes” has little currency with members of the Party of No – who, oddly enough, used to really like the idea of cap-and-trade – back when they thought Democrats would never go for it.