Progressives pride themselves on being members of the reality-based community. This preference for reality directly pits them against today’s GOP, the members of which are almost uniformly enthralled by ideological fantasies that involve assumptions unsupported by facts (e.g. low taxes on the wealthy support growth) and that result in simplistic, often destructive policies (e.g., cutting government spending during a recession). Nowhere is this attitude more evident than in the battle over how to finance government.

In Missouri this dynamic has played itself out in what threatens to become a yearly ritual: the effort to impose TABOR-style spending caps. This year is no exception; GOP legislators are  proposing a a resolution(HJR 43) that would place on the November ballot a constitutional amendment to enact a TABOR variant, a tax and expenditure limit or TEL:

The proposal, which would amend the Missouri Constitution, would limit the growth in annual state spending to the inflation rate plus the percentage change in population for Missouri. Any extra revenue would help pay off state debt, cover emergencies or go back to taxpayers as temporary tax cuts.

Similar efforts to handcuff future legislators have failed in the past, but there are two factors that could make a difference this year. First, Missouri’s plantation master, Rex Sinquefield, supports the concept and has supplied his main man in the House, Speaker Steve Tilley (R-106), with a sizeable payout. Second, the inevitable Democratic quisling has been secured, in this case, Rep. Chris Kelley Kelly (D-24), who thinks it will be fine to handicap future legislators as long as the cap is high enough – based on 2008 revenue – and does not take effect right away, but is delayed until state revenues reach that highpoint.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it’s never a good idea to decrease legislative flexibility, particularly when dealing with future conditions that cannot be accounted for in the current environment. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, here are numerous factors that belie the seeming simplicity of this approach to enforced government spending restraint.

— No existing measure of inflation correctly captures the growth in the cost of the kinds of services purchased in the public sector, so the inflation adjustment generally is not sufficient to allow the continuation of existing services. State governments spend much of their money on education and health care, which typically have cost increases greater than the general rate of inflation. […]

— The subpopulations that state governments serve tend to grow more rapidly than the overall population growth used in the formula. […]

— The rigidities of formula-based budgeting, such as a population-plus-inflation growth factor, do not allow funding of new priorities that may be embraced by the public, such as reduced class sizes or more stringent corrections policies. They do not allow states to adapt to federal mandates that require states to spend more in areas such as security and education, and they may have no provisions for emergency spending on natural disasters or other unanticipated problems.

— A TEL based on a population-plus-inflation growth factor, or any other artificial formula, moves the budget process away from the careful weighing of competing priorities and consideration of the value of new initiatives and toward a process defined by sterile limits that require the shrinking of government services in most years.

Most damming, of course, is the Colorado experience with its TABOR law which had a disastrous effect on the state. Speaker Tilley seems to think that this new effort to limit future finance options is  “very, very different” from the Colorado law, but it is difficult to figure how it really differs in substance, or how it answers any of the objections outlined above.

Of course, the Missouri TEL wouldn’t take effect until state revenues have recovered significantly, but even in the highwater year of 2008, revenues were arguably not sufficient for the state’s needs. Rep. Ginese Monticello (D-66) expressed concerns about education and social services in Missouri under the proposed formula:

Even if I could get all the money in the world for education I have some concerns for social services as well. So, it seems to me that we’re kind of locking some groups into a continued future of being under funded when our needs in our state are becoming greater with unemployment still at really high levels

Bear in mind that Missour’s infrastructure was in sad shape long before the recession; Missouri’s bridges, for example, are the seventh worst in the nation in terms of decay. Also stop to consider that Missouri is already a very low tax state – 43rd lowest in the nation.

Wouldn’t this low tax status combined with the need for greater social, educational, and physical infrastructure investment lead one to think that Missouri’s legislators would be better employed if they were to spend some time overhauling the moribund state tax system, or perhaps looking for some revenue enhancements, like setting up a mechanism for collecting Internet sales taxes, or raising cigarette taxes that are also much lower than in most states? But such rational activity, of course, would mean abandoning ideology for reality.

On March 19th, six Democratic state representatives participated in a NOW sponsored forum where they discussed about what it’s like to serve in a majority GOP legislature during a period of radical GOPer fringism. Reps. Jill Schuupp (D-82), Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-59), Ginese Montecillo (D-66), Margo McNeil (D-78), Jeanne Kirkton (D-91) and Rory Ellinger (D-72) spoke for about an hour and a half, mostly in response to written questions solicited from the audience.

General impressions of the meeting were posted here yesterday; questions 1-3 with summaries of the discussion they engendered can be found below the fold. The remaining questions will be be covered in a subsequent posting.

Question 1.  What’s the status of Right to Work here? What’s Nixon’s position?

There seemed to be a general consensus that RTW could potentially become the law in Missouri. If the legislation doesn’t pass in the legislature – Kirkton thinks it will stall in the House – we may see it on the 2012 ballot. Kirkton observed that if it comes to a ballot initiative, supporters will have lots of money at their disposal, and because, since 1978 “people have been hard at work demonizing unions,” it may have a good chance of success.

The all-out rightwing effort to demonize unions, especially teachers unions, came up again and again. In response to the GOP argument that because tax dollars pay the salary of public employees, their union dues should not be used for partisan, Democratic, political purposes, Margo McNeil had – literally – the money quote:

Like the salary I make working ten hours a day while I was teaching didn’t count for anything, and wasn’t really  my own money to spend

Question 2. We recently voted on Prop. B in November and there’s legislation to revoke that. What’s the status, and, again, what will Nixon do?

The speakers had a variety of opinions on this topic; for instance, Ellinger said that Nixon would be “hard-put” to veto the repeal legislation given his need to balance votes from all sides of the “Missourah/Missouri” divide, while McNeil thought it would be foolish of Nixon not to veto it. Montecillo thought that, given the bipartisan support behind Prop. B, the issue could potentially hurt the GOP. All the speakers noted that they got more letters on this issue than any other and that the letters were markedly bipartisan in nature.

Schuupp noted that the repeal legislation would probably pass, and although Democrats were making efforts to amend it and make it less onerous, those efforts would probably come to nothing. While indicating that she would respect the wishes of her constituents and vote against the repeal legislation, she made an interesting point in response to the common argument that the legislature should never overturn the will of the people:

The legislature, just let me say, often overturns the vote of the people. And I will say this, there are certain things, like Prop. A, that, for example, that repeals the, that forces the city to vote every 5 years on the earnings tax, that if and when I get the opportunity to change that, I’m going to vote to repeal the vote of the people. I don’t want to say absolutely unequivocably [sic], I will never override your vote, but I’m going to use my good judgment. That’s what you sent us up there to do.

Echoing a point made by Roy Ellinger about the volume of response generated by the puppy mill issue relative to the small response generated by other issues, Schuupp added:

… we have received more information on puppy mill legislation than any other piece of legislation, and I know people love their animals and I support that love for animals, but, my gosh, we have a lot of people out there hurting too and I sure wish people would – and I am not talking to this group, but the message is larger – I sure wish people would stand up and get that involved when it involves other people too.

Question 3. This week Arne Duncan, who is President Obama’s education guy, stated that No Child Left Behind was set up to make schools and teachers fail. So I’ve got a two-part question: Part 1. What is the future of House Bill 628, the Teacher Continuing Contract Act? Are there good, valid parts of it, or how can we make it better or get rid of it?

Margo McNeil, who is a former teacher and is on the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, gets credit for the most succinct answer when she immediately declared that, “628, as it was originally written, is the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen in my entire career – I mean going back 20 years.” She added that the bill had been improved somewhat in committee, but still violated basic fairness and left teachers open to unfair punitive measures with no real recourse to outside legal appeal.

The other teacher among the Representatives, Genise Montecillo, voiced concern about how the members of the caucus would vote on the bill given the reform focus on St. Louis schools, which, she admitted, have real problems. However, she noted that within a tenure system, bad teachers can be dismissed if administrators do their jobs, and that it unfair to punish an entire profession because of lazy and incompetent administrators. “Show me one study that links poor student achievement to tenure,” she asked.

As far as evaluating teachers on a one-size-fits all system, Montecillo argued that it is difficult to effectively measure student achievement in an across the board fashion. She spoke of her experience with students with behavioral difficulties for whom “being able to sit next to a classmate for an whole class  period, that was progress for them.”

Question 3, Part 2: With education budgets being cut, why are we still wasting time on MAP testing. It consumes the time of education and educators such as teachers and counselors who would rather teach.

Ellinger spoke as a former school board members when he said that testing for comparative purposes is not a bad thing. When test scores dip, it can be used to pinpoint problems and allocate resources.

Montecillo added that while we need accountability in classes, she is concerned about how we test. We compare performance across classes; we do not test improvement over the year.

A little over sixty people from the St. Louis area gathered a week ago last Saturday at a forum organized by a local NOW chapter to hear six Democratic state representatives talk about what it’s like to serve in a majority GOP legislature in this day of radical GOPer fringism. Reps. Jill Schuupp (D-82), Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-59), Ginese Montecillo (D-66), Margo McNeil (D-78), Jeanne Kirkton (D-91) and Rory Ellinger (D-72) spoke for about an hour and a half, mostly in response to questions from the audience.

The short version of what they had to say, to paraphrase one of the speakers, is that they feel like  they’re trying to hold back the water in a leaky dam as new leaks spring up all around.  Rep. Jill Schuup (D-82) put it well:

… We go to to Jefferson city and we have all these ideas, and all these things we support, and the communities we want to represent, and the constituencies that we care about, and we get there and, being in a very small minority most of, a lot of  what I think we are doing is doing our best to keep things from moving forward as quickly as they are … it is hard to enforce the dam when there are so few of us.

The comparison that came to my mind as I listened was the famous last stand at the battle of Thermopylae where a small Spartan force valiantly defended the Pass of Thermopylae from the larger force of invading Persians. As Rep. Margo McNeil put it, the GOP is “at war with women, the working class and the middle class and with public education.” But, unlike Wisconsin, she added “if we walked out, they’d keep going … We have to stay, we have to fight the fight.”

The other major theme was the sense that Missouri’s real problems, especially endemic unemployment, are either being addressed unrealistically or being shunted aside. The GOP-dominated legislature plays backup for the Chamber of Commerce and pitches to those who can still get fired up by wedge issues. As Margo McNeil remarked, about the GOP efforts to fix the economy, “Fix-the-Six is like deep-six the working class.” Kirkton added that:

Our attention is not focused on what we said we would do which is create jobs …. We have the English only bill, we have the abortion bill, we’re overturning prop B probably next week … we also have bills that are attacking teachers.

Add the anti-Sharia bill and you get the point of Rep. Tallboy’s (D-37) remark, quoted by Kirkton, that “we’re running out of groups to pick on.” This effort to divide people and the misguided economic policies that are being proposed, as Mott-Oxford observed, “will condemn us to mediocrity in every way … bigotry will cost in terms of jobs.”

Well said, and sadly, too true.

Questions and summaries of answers will be given in subsequent posts: