Tag Archives: Ann Wagner

Ann Wagner’s Missouri values

20 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Word is that U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2) may be planning to challenge Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in next year’s midterm election. She’s also taking lots of heat for refusing to hold real, in-person town halls – and, no, hyper-managed tele-town halls don’t count. This fact explains her defensive response to Senator McCaskill’s recent jibe indirectly referencing Wagner’s now-notorious fear of being confronted by less than tame constituents in an environment that she cannot control. McCaskill – who spent the recent congressional recess on a listening tour of the state has plenty of standing on this issue. She’s held numerous Town Halls and listening sessions, even during the most virulent Tea Party period, which means that she’s earned the right to assert that folks who haven’t got what it takes stand up before angry constituents in an open forum and take responsibility for their actions aren’t fit to hold office.

The nettled Wagner promptly attempted to deflect McCaskill’s very palpable hit. She rushed to attack, peevishly declaring that, “I believe what makes you unfit for office is when you don’t represent Missouri values; and Sen. McCaskill’s vote against [Supreme Court] Justice Gorsuch last week told millions of Missourians that she simply doesn’t share their values.”

So what are these “Missouri values” of which Wagner speaks? Based on her performance over just the last few months, I’m willing to make an educated guess that Wagner’s own special Missouri values include the following:

— Shafting Missouri consumers, especially senior citizens: Wagner’s untiring efforts over the past few years to repeal the Obama era fiduciary rules and to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) speak for themselves.

— Standing up for her big political donors: See the above point and then consider the piles of dollars that Wagner has raked in from the likes of Edward Jones and other big hitters in the financial services industry.

— Going along to get along, decency be dammed: During the campaign, Wagner made it clear that the stench of Donald Trump made her gag – until she realized that the red-meat folks she had to rely on to get elected thought he smelled like chateaubriand. Now she’s all smiles and compliance.

— Talking feminism while shafting women: Wagner makes a big deal about her efforts to fight sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking. But she voted against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – because it was too comprehensive. And issued a public statement that made it sound like she hadn’t. Hypocrites, we shall know ye by your words.

And then there’s Wagner’s vote for Neil Gorsuch a corporatist in originalist clothing– who is straight-out bad news for women and a disaster for working and middle class Missourians. If that vote represents Missouri values, it’s only because a lot of poor fools have been sold a bill of goods.

No wonder Country Club Ann is scared to face the rowdy hoi polloi in an unconstrained environment. She clearly knows nothing about our values.

Ann Wagner’s tele-townhall. Pt. 1: Who made the cut? Why? How?

23 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, ,

Rep. Ann Wagner is showing signs that constituent pressure might be getting to her. Many of us who’ve been writing and calling her, asking that she meet with us and take a little time to hear our concerns and take our questions, learned via her email newsletter that she held a “tele-townhall,” a tried and true dodge to avoid risking a little in person give-and-take. And she clearly thinks that that’s done the trick. Here she is patting herself on the back in a recent email newsletter:

With so much happening in Washington under President Trump’s new administration and our Republican-led Congress, it is important that I continue to hear what is on your mind at home. I am thrilled that more than 9,000 of you joined us for a tele-townhall conversation Thursday night, where we discussed issues ranging from healthcare to pro-life legislation.

Just to give you a little perspective, over 400,000 folks voted in the last 2nd district election but nobody I’ve heard from seems to be very clear about how the 9,000 folks who “thrilled” Annie by “joining” her on the call were selected for the honor from among that 400,000.

I’ve personally called Wagner’s office several times to ask that she hold a public town-hall – she’s right that there’s lots going on that will affect people in the 2nd district in very serious ways and we want her – hell, we need her – to hear and respond to our concerns. The response? I was told that I could sign up for her newsletter if I wanted to know what was going on chez Rep.Wagner – never mind that, as I told her “tele-staffer,” I’ve been signed up to receive them for a long, long time and Annie’s coy little newsletter driblets don’t really do the trick. Nobody mentioned a tele-townhall to me as a possibility. Which makes sense given that the latest event – which is the only one I’ve personally ever heard about, thanks to some generous Facebook info sharing – seems to have been a surprise for even the participants.

Nor are many of us, including, by all accounts, Wagner’s staff, sure about what it takes to get in on these surprise parties, at least according to some 2nd district residents who’ve been calling and asking how to be included. One person said that she called, left contact information, and asked to participate in the next tele-townhall, and, though the actual telephone event Wagner boasts about above was held later that day, the staffer taking her information said nothing at all about it. Nor was she called. Wonder why?

I have read a report from one person who participated in that call and have heard that another just missed the surprise call inviting her to join the event. But the fact that some folks had the opportunity to listen to Rep. Wagner does not mitigate the problem. If these events are meant to substitute for actual town-halls, why can’t constituents sign up for them? Why wait to be selected? An even more basic question is why aren’t constituents being notified ahead of time that one of these events is imminent so they can do whatever is necessary to participate? Why can’t anyone tell us what it takes to be included?

Wagner has email addresses for all of us who subscribe to her newsletter – which itself indicates interest in what she has to say. It would be easy to let us all know in advance and invite our participation when she’s planning to tele-gift  us with her insights into the Trump world she seems to be embracing so wholeheartedly. It would actually be relatively trivial to set up a web-page form we could use to register for the teleconferences. Other folks do such things. I really bet that if Wagner actually cared about communicating with constituents, she could implement some process that would let us decide if we want to participate, rather than leaving us to wait breathlessly to be tapped whenever she feels like getting us – or some of us – on the line.

You don’t think she’s cherry-picking participants , do you?

The news has been full of reports about how “ugly” some Republican town halls have been over the past few weeks, prompting, comparisons to the boisterous town halls that Democrats endured during the nascent Tea Party years. There’s a big difference though, at least for Missourians. I well remember how valiantly, resolutely, and, yes, respectfully, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill handled the worked-up Tea Partiers – and some of them were, to put it mildly, really ugly.

Questions of how to conduct tele-townhalls aside, though, isn’t the real issue still that Rep. Wagner needs to take similar, face-to-face responsibility for what she is doing in Congress if she wants our respect – and our votes? Isn’t answering our questions – especially the ones that have got us hot and bothered – her job? If Wagner’s really a “representative” shouldn’t she do some representing? And if she isn’t going to represent all of us, at least by listening and responding to us, maybe she should retire. Or be retired.

Time to exorcise the NRA’s 2nd amendment demon?

03 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Representatives Sam Graves (R-6), Vicky Hartzler (R-4), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3), Billy Long (R-7), Jason Smith (R-8), and Ann Wagner (R-2). The entire Republican Missouri U.S. House lineup. Remember each one of these names next time there’s a mass shooting and Republican Senator Blunt or some other NRA apologist comes out and says, as Blunt did after one or another in the spate of mass shootings we have experienced in the past few years, that the problem isn’t guns, it’s mental illness.

These five congresspeople voted today to rescend an Obama administration rule that prohibited the sale of guns to mentally ill persons. Specifically:

The House voted 235-180 largely along party lines Thursday to repeal an Obama-era rule requiring the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries to the federal firearms background check system after they’ve been deemed mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs.

The rule, when implemented, would affect about 75,000 recipients of disability insurance and supplemental insurance income who require a representative to manage their benefits because of a disabling mental disorder, ranging from anxiety to schizophrenia. It applies to those between age 18 and full retirement age.

What’s really rich is that GOPers explained their vote by saying they were worried that the rule “stigmatized” folks with disabilities and “unfairly” deprived them of their 2nd amendment rights. This, mind you, is coming from the very people who think every Muslim is a terrorist until proven otherwise. Folks who  don’t turn a hair when 100,000 people with totally legal visas are denied entry to the U.S. because they are Muslim. And they’re worried that denying guns to people too ill to handle their own affairs is overkill.

Maybe we should give blind drivers licenses so that they don’t feel unduly stigmatized.

Or we could permit folks on the terrorist watch list to purchase guns – oh, wait. I forgot the same cast of characters made sure that we already do just that.

No flies on Ann Wagner when it comes to fighting against “Obamacare” for investors.

21 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

It was remarkable how fast some GOP pols geared up to take advantage of our know-nothing President-elect to push their favorite hobby horses. We’ve not only got folks revving up the endless Obamacare repeal effort, but Paul Ryan has signaled that he has Trump’s thumbs-up to go forward with his Medicare privatization plan. Nor did Missouri’s Ann Wagner waste any time, immediately signaling that she is going after Department of Labor (DOL) regulations designed to protect small investors and retirees.

The DOL rules that have kept Wagner and her banking friends all lathered up are intended to keep investment professionals from giving advice that serves their own interest rather than their clients. As I noted in an earlier post on this topic, “a report (pdf) from the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that retirees are defrauded of $17 billion a year by unscrupulous advisers who fail to disclose conflicts of interest or the hidden fees they are charging the unwary.”

Wagner has fought this rule relentlessly, submitting and resubmitting legislation designed to repeal it, going so far as to threaten DOL funding if it finalized the rules. Trump’s victory has only revitalized her efforts.

In Wagner’s regular constituent’s newsletter, which was emailed to me today, she is signaling that the effort to rescind this rule, which she shamelessly terms “Obamacare for investors,” will be part of a larger effort to keep the Obama administration from finalizing new regulations during the period before the Trump ascendancy. She writes:

For the past 8 years, President Obama has used his pen and phone to create a fourth branch of government, imposing executive orders and federal rules and regulations to benefit his own radical political agenda. President-elect Trump must have the opportunity to enact policies without regulatory hindrance from the previous Administration.

This is why the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Midnight Rules Relief Act last week, which would halt President Obama’s ability to rush through politically motivated regulations during the remainder of his term. I have spent my time in Congress fighting for our families, fighting to repeal regulations that are hindering business growth, and fighting to provide a voice to the voiceless. I am proud that we came together to ensure our new President, Donald Trump, has the support in Congress that he has earned.

If the president has relied on the rule-making powers of agencies subject to executive control, it is simply because a Republican-controlled congress consistently obstructed his goals – even going so far as to shut-down the government at great cost to tax-payers. Why in Hades, then, would Wagner expect Democrats to do anything to assist President-elect Trump (or even President Trump) in the great corporate giveaway that lies ahead?

The Midnight Rules Relief Act that Wagner refers to will undoubtedly be vetoed by President Obama – if it even makes it to his desk. It’s superfluous at any rate, since retrospective efforts to kill regulations issued during his presidency will likely be ongoing under the 20 year old Congressional Review Act.

It is also apropos to note that the regulations likely to be finalized during the remaining months of President Obama’s term have almost all been in process for a long time, having undergone extensive review and open-comment periods. These are not, as some assert, hasty and “politically motivated” regulations. Far from constituting a “fourth branch of government,” making and enacting such agency-specific regulations is a part of the function of executive agencies. The administration is just doing its jobs.

As for Wagner’s self-proclaimed advocacy for “families” and the “voiceless,” I hardly think that the banking industry, the interests of which she has been well-compensated  for representing so ardently (see also here), hardly qualifies under either rubric. But hell, she’s a Republican. If they told the truth, nobody would ever vote for them.

I’m sure that from Wagner’s perspective it’s much better to present consumer fiduciary protection as another example of government interference in ordinary families’ lives, a condescending elite belief that “the American people need to be protected from themselves, that they are not smart or capable enough to control their own retirement savings.” Of course, when investment professionals don’t have to tell you the truth, it hardly reflects on your intelligence or capacity when they take advantage of you. And, despite Wagner’s condescending effort to manipulate perception, most small investors, many of whom are elderly retired folk, don’t always know what they don’t know.

But what I want to know is where does Wagner get off conflating a rule that protects consumers with “Obamacare” as if its the all-time scare label? I know she claims that requiring investment advisors to act in an honest and above-board fashion would discourage them from working with small investors because, evidently, they won’t work for folks they can’t bilk. And that’s a pretty dumb pitch. But just because she can’t think of any better justification, does Obamacare have to take all the weight for her mendacity just because her equally mendacious colleagues managed to smear an overall good health care delivery reform by tying it to the  first black president?

*5th and 6th paragraphs from bottom were slightly revised for clarity and style.

Which members of the Missouri congressional delegation are for or against Paul Ryan’s Medicare phase out plan.

19 Saturday Nov 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have written here about the fact that House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan is planning to take advantage of Trump’s election to push his Medicare privatization plan, a plan that will essentially destroy Medicare as we know it. Please find below a checklist of Missouri politicians categorized by their response to  Ryan’s privatization plan.

This list will be updated and reposted as politicians make their positions clear (or don’t).

Note that even if a particular politician indicates that they don’t support Ryan’s privatization phase out, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t open to fiddling with the system in often destructive ways. I also indicate which House members voted for or against the Ryan plan earlier when it was included in the proposed 2015 House budget and which have negative or positive voting records in regard to Medicare related issues.

Members of Missouri’s U.S. Congressional delegation who will oppose Ryan’s latest effort to destroy Medicare:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) (see here for source and discussion).

Members of Missouri’s U.S. Congressional delegation who have been contacted but have not committed to a position on Rep. Ryan’s phase out plan at at this point.

Roy Blunt (R) (Source: TPM list as per 11/19).Blunt has a record of voting for legislation that undercuts Medicare.

Rep. Sam Graves (R) (Source: TPM list as per 11/19 (list up dated regularly)). Graves  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. He has a record of mostly voting to weaken Medicare.

Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (D-5) (Source: TPM list as per 11/19) Cleaver voted against the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. His voting record is mostly pro-Medicare.

Members of Missouri’s U.S. Congressional delegation who have not yet been contacted about their current position on Ryan’s Medicare phase out plan.

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-1) Clay voted against the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. His voting record is mostly pro-Medicare.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4) Hartzler voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. She has a record of mostly voting to weaken weaken Medicare.

Rep. Billy Long (R-7) Long  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. He has a record of mostly voting to weaken Medicare.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3) Luetkemeyer  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. He has a record of mostly voting to weaken Medicare.

Rep. Jason Smith (R-8) Smith  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. He has a record of mostly voting to weaken Medicare.

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-4) Wagner  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. She has a record of mostly voting to weaken weaken Medicare.

Ann Wagner brings her comedy routine to the Post-Dispatch

18 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The St. Louis Post-Dispatach’s Chuck Raasch interviewed Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2) about her take on the election of Donald Trump, a candidate she declined to support until threatened with retribution by ardent Trumpies. In response, she made a few funnies:

  • When asked if she was stepping back from her congressional leadership position to ready for a run against Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, Wagner demurred, noting that “Missourians were tired of campaigns.” And there’s the explanation for the past two campaigns during which she refused to debate or engage on the issues – at least, out in the open, where she might have gotten get some troublesome questions. She was just trying not to fatigue the delicate Missouri psyche.
  • Wagner noted that she was eager to help the GOP “repeal Obamacare and replace it with something that Republican leaders have yet to formulate.” What’s funny about this – apart from her preference for a plan that GOPers “have yet to formulate”? Simply that Obamacare is a Republican plan. Caused Mitt Romney, who adopted a nearly identical plan in Massachusetts, some serious grief after Republicans decided that they couldn’t accept their own ideas when promoted by a black Democrat. Sadly, GOPers aren’t likely to have much left in their healthcare plan inventory if they continue to pretend that Obamacare is anathema.
  • Wagner denied Democratic claims that GOP rule is going to mean a “return to a lax regulatory environment.” Then she listed all the consumer protection regulations she looks forward to helping deep-six.
  • Wagner also thinks Obama’s clean air regulations are solely responsible for the demise of coal industry jobs. Evidently she knows nothing about the way the vaunted GOP free market works, the prevalence of natural gas, or the automation of coal mining. Or about the importance of clean air.
  • Funniest of all? Wagner declares that she is “most excited and focused on the opportunity to work with President Trump and this unified Republican government.” Guess she hasn’t been reading the news lately. Good luck with that “unified” Republican government thing.

Looks like Wagner, though, is ready to play ball. If there is going to be a Republican civil war, Wagner wants to let the newly ascendant GOP fascist wing know that she isn’t going to be on the front lines fighting for the other side any more, principles or no principles – she likely had her fill of angry authoritarians carrying big metaphorical sticks after Traitorstotrump.com came after her. And anyway, the financial industry folks she really works for are finally probably going to get their way – down with Dodd-Frank – so it’s all good.

*Last paragraph slightly revised for clarity.

Faster than a whirling top: Wagner changes positions yet again

03 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Today Digby observed  that:

As the polls tighten in the last few days of the presidential election campaign, it’s interesting to see the reluctant GOP establishment start scurrying back into Donald Trump’s fold. Apparently, prominent Republicans are all making the bet that Trump will at least come close enough to make it necessary to back him, lest they be blamed for his failure.

We can now add to the number of GOP pols coming home to Trump and the new realities of the Republican Party our own GOP Rep. Ann Wagner (Dist. 2). A month ago she was quite clear that she wouldn’t touch the “the predatory and reprehensible” Donald Trump with the proverbial ten foot stick, and that she had no recourse other than to “withdraw my endorsement and call for Governor Pence to take the lead so we can defeat Hillary Clinton.”

Now that Pence has failed to heed the call to glory, she’s evidently had second thoughts. Although that’s not the way she tells it. After asking to go on the air to “clarify” her position, she told local conservative radio host Jamie Allman that:

“I have always been voting for Donald Trump, and I will do that next Tuesday, and I encourage everyone listening to vote for Trump as well,” Wagner said of the Republican nominee.

“You know, Jamie, and I don’t know why there has been some, perhaps some confusion here, but since last May, after Donald Trump released his list of Supreme Court justices I made it clear that I am voting for Donald Trump. I want an entire ticket sweep up and down. I would never be voting for Hillary Clinton. We need to stop this criminal enterprise and it is the only way, only way we are going to have a corruption-free White House.”

Several interesting points here:

First: Wagner is trying to obfuscate her earlier, very clear-cut repudiation of Donald Trump. Which leads one to ask how sanctimonious GOPers like Wagner can lie regularly with impunity and then call Hillary Clinton, who has racked up a pretty clean record for honesty if you bother to look at the facts, a liar.

Second: Wagner’s voting for a man who, speaking of criminal enterprises, may well be facing numerous indictments for fraud, bribery, and sexual assault. There are strong intimations that he’s in cahoots in some way, financial or otherwise, with Russia’s Putin. His business dealings open him to numerous looming conflicts of interest, both in the U.S. and abroad, from which he has indicated he has no intention of extricating himself. It’s just too rich to hear Wagner declare that she’s voting for a man implicated in not one but many potentially criminal scandals because she wants to stop a Clinton “criminal enterprise,” by which she means, I would guess, the demonstrably misleading spin surrounding Clinton’s use of a personal email server and the almost comically flimsy allegations about the Clinton Foundation, all very small potatoes indeed when compared to the record of Wagner’s newly reaffirmed choice for president.

Third: Wagner falls back on the argument that a vote for Trump is a vote to give conservatives the Supreme Justices they want. Such a supreme court would undoubtedly turn the flirtation between conservative constitutional interpretation and corporate hegemony into a torrid romance, giving birth to a fully empowered right-wing oligarchy in the U.S. It could also put the kibosh on abortion along with other feminist and minority aspirations – which is the real “get” for most of the folks Wagner is trying to appease with her about-face.

One wonders if Wagner’s most recent change of heart has anything to do with the fact that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the local paper of record, has just endorsed her opponent, Democrat Bill Otto? Does that endorsement reinforce fears that her hold on her redefined, more moderate second district isn’t as strong as it needs to be? Does she feel forced to turn back to Trumpsters for support? Or did she get more vitriolic GOP flak for turning on The Donald than she was expecting. Digby ably characterizes the dilemma that Trump poses for pols like Wagner:

It’s been a tough time for Republican officials and elite conservative pundits, and that’s understandable. They’ve just discovered that their voters have a different interpretation of conservatism than they thought they did.

Blunt and Wagner: The not so dynamic duo take on energy policy.

28 Friday Oct 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I noted in an earlier post that GOP Senator Roy Blunt and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2) have teamed up to produce some glossy mailers detailing their joint policy positions. Admittedly, such mailers provide a limited canvas upon which present complex issues to voters – although this oversimplification is likely considered a feature rather than a bug by many politicians including, one suspects, Blunt-Wagner. Nevertheless, the mailers are so misleading that it might be useful to shovel out some of the muck that they’re trying to spread.

In the first mailer that I received, images of a benignly smiling Wagner and a manically grimacing Blunt doing his best to mimic the act of smiling are juxtaposed with their promise to fight for “affordable American energy.” The reverse side identifies the object of their pugilistic posture as “the Kander-Clinton energy agenda,” obviously aiming at Blunt’s senate election opponent, Jason Kander.

Silly me – I didn’t know that Kander shared top billing with Clinton when it comes to her energy agenda. I hope this means that Kander, unlike other Missouri Democrats (do you hear me Claire McCaskill?), will be on board with Hillary Clinton’s smart proposals to curb climate change – which are very heavy on investing in clean, renewable energy sources while supporting those whose livelihoods could be will be disrupted by the transition from fossil fuels.

The mailer suggests that Blunt-Wagner are in some type of time warp, busily relitigating the 2009 Waxman-Merkey energy bill. It agonizes about a “type of radical cap-and-trade energy tax favored by Hillary Clinton” – although her Web pages dealing with climate change do not mention cap-and-trade, nor has she endorsed the concept elsewhere. The Waxman-Markey bill did include cap-and-trade provisions, and it seems to form the basis for the Blunt-Wagner scaremongering about “radical” energy policy.

Oddly, the mailer claims that Kander voted for cap-and-trade three times. But Vote Smart does not record any votes by Kander on energy policy from his time as a state senator. Nor, as a state Senator, would he have voted on the federal-level Waxman-Markey Bill.

What the “three votes” probably refers to was Kander’s vote in the State Senate against HCR 46, a non-binding resolution that encouraged Missouri’s Congressional Delegation to vote against cap-and-trade. If so, I, along with many Missourians, say “good on ya, Jason. ” Somewhere down the road, Missouri, as an agricultural state, is going to have to come to terms with the fact climate change will, over time, hurt farmers more than higher energy prices. We call it foresight as opposed to short term thinking and it’s supposed to be highly desirable in governance.

Nor, to be honest, would cap-and-trade, were it a part of the Clinton energy proposals, necessarily pose an insurmountable problem for Missouri farmers. California, another agricultural power-house, made the transition to cap-and-trade three years ago and the results have been far from the catastrophe promised by the Blunt-Wagner duo and their fellow partisans:

“We think we do have a good story to tell,” says Mary D. Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, which administers cap-and-trade.

The program’s quarterly auctions of emissions allowances have gone on largely without a hitch. The program has fit in, as was expected, with other emissions reduction programs implemented under AB 32, the state’s landmark greenhouse gas legislation, including mandates for renewable fuels sources for electrical utilities and emissions standards for new cars and trucks.

It has done so without a measurable drag on economic growth. The program generated $969 million in revenue for the state through the end of 2014, and is expected to generate $2 billion a year or more in the future. The money must be spent on efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

“What we’ve learned is that a cap-and-trade system will not kill the California economy,” says Stanford economist Lawrence H. Goulder, who advised the ARB on the program’s design. “The economy has continued to flourish.”

The mailer includes some cost estimates that first turned up in 2009 when the GOP was fighting tooth-and-nail to kill Waxman-Markey. Needless to say, all of the estimates were shown to be bunkum at the time (see also here). They’re still bunkum.

Borrowing discredited arguments from seven years ago to address an imaginary cap-and-trade agenda only proves how bankrupt the energy policy espoused by Wagner-Blunt is. Contrary to their claims, cap-and-trade is proving to be viable where it has been implemented although it does not, at this time, seem to be the main mechanism endorsed by Hillary Clinton to address climate change. Additionally, clean energy alternatives, which Clinton does emphasize, are currently creating numerous jobs while the industry as a whole is booming.

What this all means is that maybe Missourians should take the Wagner-Blunt duo with a very big pinch of salt.

Can Ann Wagner carry a wounded Roy Blunt to victory?

27 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

GOP Senator Roy Bunt and Rep. Ann Wagner are pairing up. In a series of glossy mailers the two jointly take on various policy issues like health care and energy policy about which they spoon out predictable GOP talking points that have mostly been repudiated ad nauseum.

But why together? A money saving twofer? Eh … maybe. But they’ve both got big campaign war chests, bigger than the other guy in both cases, and Blunt is now getting all that dark money support from out-of-state billionaires and their pet PACS.

Maybe the beleaguered Blunt hopes that some of Wagner’s surburban cachet will rub off by association. Wagner’s odds of being re-elected are pretty good. Blunt? Not so much. Today on the Diane Rehm show a prognosticator actually said that Blunt would probably go down. Democrat Jason Kander may very well take his place in Washington.

Wagner only has to please the more moderate, but still relatively conservative, surburban constituents in the second district. She’s good at playing it safe and dishing out treacle that goes down smoothly in that environment. She may do Big Banking’s bidding, for example, but she always couches her efforts to help the big guys as somehow beneficial to the little guy . Her syrupy newsletters rarely even bother to mention her hardcore legislative activities except every once in a while and in the mildest of terms.

Blunt on the other hand, engaged in a state-wide race, has to satisfy both sides of a splintering GOP. On one side he’s got the Trump brigade – which hasn’t been too happy with his corporatist, big-money first approach since their earlier Tea Party days. On the other side are GOP centrists who aren’t too pleased by his detente with the Trumpist barbarians at the GOP gate.

Of course outcomes are often unexpected. Could Blunt possibly put an unwelcome spotlight on Wagner and her retrograde policy positions?

In a just world, maybe.

Ann Wagner has had a change of heart – a day late and a dollar short

08 Saturday Oct 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Breaking news from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: country-club Republican, Ann Wagner (R-2) has had a change of heart and will no longer support Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The occasion for her newfound disdain was the exposure of Trump’s decade-old more explicitly sleazy than usual comments about women:

I have committed my short time in Congress to fighting for the most vulnerable in our society. As a strong and vocal advocate for victims of sex trafficking and assault, I must be true to those survivors and myself and condemn the predatory and reprehensible comments of Donald Trump, […]  I withdraw my endorsement and call for Governor Pence to take the lead so we can defeat Hillary Clinton.

Laudable, but, one can only ask, why now? Why didn’t the stream of bigotry, racism and misogyny that have emanated from Trump over the past few months lead Wagner to disavow him as the leader of her party long ago? This is a woman who, up to now has been willing to support a candidate endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan , giving him her vote with only a few, pro forma quivers of trepidation.

Do you think that maybe that the last sentence in the quote above might have something to do with Wagner’s sudden willingness to make a hard turn on a candidate whose essential unfitness for office has been obvious from day one?

The faint whiff of Republican defeat in November has now become an overwhelming stench and, like rats too timid to leap pell-mell from their sinking boat, many GOPers hope that Pence might just be just the life-preserver the party and their own, individual political fortunes need if they are to emerge unscathed from association with Trump. And this latest piece of Trumpian nastiness, along with Pence’s self-aggrandizing performance at last Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate, offers just the opportunity they have needed.

Pence emerged as the hero of the Republican day when he coolly abandoned Trump during his debate with the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Tim Kaine, last Tuesday. With almost breathtaking audacity, he substituted his own policy prescriptions for the incoherent ramblings of Donald Trump and earned widespread huzzahs for the cold-blooded smoothness with which he left his running mate twisting in the wind.

Many commentators have suggested that Pence did what he did in an effort to raise his profile for 2020. He was, in effect, preparing to make future lemonade out of an admittedly over-sized lemon. However, pols like Wagner want their lemonade right now and they think they can get away with flipping the ticket – even at this late date, an action that, as Akhil Reed Amar suggests in Vox, might be plausible if they act fast.

What this suggests to me is that now that the power struggles that animate the opportunistic GOP hacks have been bared for all to see it is, as they say, time to pass the popcorn.