• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: veto

Gov. Jay Nixon’s Veto of SB 24: “Mean People Suck”

01 Friday May 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, governor, Jay Nixon, missouri, SB 24, veto, welfare

“…We don’t strengthen families by hurting children…”

Governor Jay Nixon [2014 file photo].

Governor Jay Nixon vetoed SB 24 which would have cut a large number of poor Missourians from assistance:

April 30, 2015

“I don’t sign bills that hurt kids – period,” Gov. Nixon says of bill that would affect an estimated 6,400 needy children in Missouri

Kansas City, MO

Gov. Jay Nixon today joined advocates for children and families at Operation Breakthrough in Kansas City to announce his veto of Senate Bill 24, which would hurt needy children. The bill would remove an estimated 6,400 poor children from public assistance, including more than 2,600 children under the age of five.

“Children already suffer lifelong consequences from poverty; penalizing them further for their parents’ behavior is mean-spirited and just plain wrong,” said Gov. Nixon. “When it comes to adults, we can all agree on the need for personal responsibility, but these are children.  I don’t sign bills that hurt kids – period.”

The legislation contains two provisions that would negatively impact needy children.  First, the bill would reduce the lifetime limit for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits to 45 months, without providing an exception for children. As a result, if Senate Bill 24 became law, approximately 6,465 children would be cut off from benefits on January 1st, 2016.  An estimated 40 percent of these children are under the age of five.  In addition, the bill would also impose a penalty on the child of a parent who fails to engage in work activities and fails to authorize, as it has in other circumstances, a protective payee to receive and administer the child’s share of the benefits.

“There are ways that the legislature could ensure that parents are held accountable for their decisions while at the same time protecting kids — for example, by providing benefits through a responsible guardian,” said Gov. Nixon. “But again, legislators left children unprotected.  They say they’re trying to crack down on adults, but they’ve made kids the collateral damage.”

The legislation is opposed by Empower Missouri, the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence, Operation Breakthrough, the Missouri Association for Community Action, Missouri Faith Voices, Child Care Aware of Missouri, the American Academy of Pediatrics-Missouri Chapter, the Missouri Children’s Leadership Council, Paraquad and other groups representing children and families across Missouri.

“I cannot condone the hardships imposed on innocent children that Senate Bill No. 24 would require – first, by unnecessarily cutting the length of time that children can receive benefits even when their parents are working and second, by cruelly eliminating their benefits if their parents are not meeting work requirements,” the Governor’s veto message reads. “Missouri law should not mandate such meanness toward innocent children.”

In Fiscal Year 2014, 13 percent fewer families received TANF benefits than did so in Fiscal Year 2013.

[….]

The Governor’s office provided a transcript of his remarks:

Gov. Nixon announces his veto of Senate Bill 24

April 30, 2015

Good morning and thank you for joining us.  I’d like to first thank the many dedicated advocates, educators and caregivers here with us here today.

These folks see the devastating impact that poverty can have on a child’s well-being and development.  Through no fault of their own, thousands of Missouri children know what it means to go without.

Some of the signs are obvious, like kids showing up at school without coats in the winter.  Some of the more pernicious effects of poverty – hunger, homelessness, neglect — may not be as immediately obvious, but over time exact a heavy toll.

For thousands of Missouri children, going without can mean not having access to simple, but critical things, like books, preschool, healthy food and safe places to play and exercise. Things that help children thrive and grow in mind and body.  It can mean being unable to imagine a future outside of poverty.

As Missourians and as Americans – we want every child to grow up healthy and strong.

That’s why, this morning, I vetoed Senate Bill 24.

SB 24 is a misguided measure that punishes poor children in the legislature’s zeal to reduce reliance on government assistance.

Supporters of this bill have called it the “Strengthening Missouri Families Act.”

Let me be clear.

We don’t strengthen families by hurting children.

If this bill were to become law, an estimated sixty-four hundred children – twenty-six hundred of whom are under the age of five — would be cut off on January 1st – even if their parents are complying with work requirements.  

Six-thousand four hundred kids… and tens of thousands more in the future.

Now the legislature could have protected children and infants from this arbitrary cutoff with any number of safeguards – but they didn’t.

That’s fundamentally unfair and it’s wrong.

And that’s not even the only provision in this bill children would have to be worried about.

Senate Bill 24 would also penalize a child for their parent’s failure to engage in work activities.

When it comes to adults, we can all agree on the need for personal responsibility… but these are kids.

There are methods in use right now in other situations that the legislature could ensure that parents are held accountable for their decisions – while at the same time protecting kids.  For example, by providing benefits through a responsible guardian.

But again, legislators left children unprotected.  They say they’re trying to crack down on adults – but they’ve made kids the collateral damage.

Folks, I don’t sign bills that hurt kids. Period.

Now, I understand that members of the legislature want to do more to encourage people to get off public assistance and into the workforce.

I share that concern.  That’s why, as Governor, I have fought for affordable health care and public education and invested in workforce development and job-training programs that work.

When parents get the education and skills they need to find good-paying jobs that can support their families – it’s better for everyone.

And if you look at the current trend, the number of families receiving temporary assistance is declining as a result of our growing economy.

In fiscal year 2014, the number of families receiving temporary assistance was down by 13 percent from the prior year.

That’s solid progress.

Now is the time to build on this progress – not undermine it by hurting kids.

Here in Missouri, protecting children has never been about politics.

In fact, the last time I was here at Operation Breakthrough I was signing bipartisan legislation to improve children’s health and safety and strengthen requirements on child care providers.

Children already suffer lifelong consequences from poverty; penalizing them further for their parents’ behavior is mean-spirited and just plain wrong.

It’s not who we are and I will not support it.

Once again, there are ways to do this that protect kids.  The legislature should shelve this unfair and harmful bill, and work together to do the right thing by children, families and all our citizens.

Thank you and now I’ll be happy to take any questions the press may have.

The Missouri General Assembly is dominated by a number of mean people.

Fail: Senate veto override vote on Keystone XL pipeline

05 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Keystone XL, missouri, override, pipeline, Roy Blunt, veto

Today in the U.S. Senate, the next installment in the theatre of the absurd:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114th Congress – 1st Session

Vote Summary

Question: On Overriding the Veto (Shall the Bill S.1 Pass, Over the Objections of the President )

Vote Number: 68 Vote Date: March 4, 2015, 02:20 PM

Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Veto Sustained

Measure Number: S. 1 (Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act )

Measure Title: A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Vote Counts: YEAs 62

NAYs 37

Not Voting 1

YEAs —62

Alexander (R-TN)

Ayotte (R-NH)

Barrasso (R-WY)

Bennet (D-CO)

Blunt (R-MO)

Boozman (R-AR)

Burr (R-NC)

Capito (R-WV)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Cassidy (R-LA)

Coats (R-IN)

Cochran (R-MS)

Collins (R-ME)

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Cotton (R-AR)

Crapo (R-ID)

Cruz (R-TX)

Daines (R-MT)

Enzi (R-WY)

Ernst (R-IA)

Fischer (R-NE)

Flake (R-AZ)

Gardner (R-CO)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Hatch (R-UT)

Heitkamp (D-ND)

Heller (R-NV)

Hoeven (R-ND)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Isakson (R-GA)

Johnson (R-WI)

Kirk (R-IL)

Lankford (R-OK)

Lee (R-UT)

Manchin (D-WV)

McCain (R-AZ)

McCaskill (D-MO)

McConnell (R-KY)

Moran (R-KS)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Paul (R-KY)

Perdue (R-GA)

Portman (R-OH)

Risch (R-ID)

Roberts (R-KS)

Rounds (R-SD)

Rubio (R-FL)

Sasse (R-NE)

Scott (R-SC)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Sullivan (R-AK)

Tester (D-MT)

Thune (R-SD)

Tillis (R-NC)

Toomey (R-PA)

Vitter (R-LA)

Warner (D-VA)

Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs —37

Baldwin (D-WI)

Blumenthal (D-CT)

Booker (D-NJ)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Coons (D-DE)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Franken (D-MN)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Heinrich (D-NM)

Hirono (D-HI)

Kaine (D-VA)

King (I-ME)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Leahy (D-VT)

Markey (D-MA)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Merkley (D-OR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murphy (D-CT)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Peters (D-MI)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schatz (D-HI)

Schumer (D-NY)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Udall (D-NM)

Warren (D-MA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting – 1

Donnelly (D-IN)

[emphasis added]

All for what, Claire?

Previously:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): they never will (January 1, 2015)

Claire McCaskill: Enabling Republicans on Keystone XL – or not (January 10, 2015)

Claire McCaskill’s doomed love affair with Keystone XL (January 29, 2015)

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): asked and answered (January 30, 2015)

HB 1307: on the veto override

11 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

51st Legislative District, 72 hours, abortion, Dean Dohrman, Gary Grigsby, HB 1307, missouriGeneral Assembly, override, veto, waiting period

Gary Grigsby, the Democratic Party candidate in the 51st Legislative District issued the following release on yesterday’s veto override vote of HB 1307 – the bill adding a seventy-two hour waiting period for an abortion:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 11, 2014

[….]

REPRESENTATIVE DEAN DOHRMAN SUPPORTED EXTREME ABORTION BILL TO TRIPLE MANDATORY DELAY

JEFFERSON CITY- On Wednesday, the Missouri Legislature convened during its constitutionally scheduled veto session to take up a number of bills that were vetoed by Democratic Governor Jay Nixon.   In a vote of 117-44, the legislature overrode the Governor’s veto and added a 72 hour mandatory delay on all women seeking abortions in the state, including those who are victims of rape and incest.

Of the 144 votes, Representative Dean Dohrman supported the measure to add the needless waiting period, which is one of the most extreme in the country.  “This extreme bill adds another layer of government intrusion and stress to an already traumatic time,” said his opponent Gary Grigsby.  

“It’s time that our legislature focused on the important task of creating jobs and making our schools better instead of taking away decisions that should be left to a woman, her family, and her doctor.”  Grigsby continued, “This bill further traumatizes victims by prolonging their grief.  The legislation is insensitive, wrong-headed, and has no place in Missouri.”

“This is just another example where the Missouri Legislature has added one more layer of invasive government regulations to women’s health.  The sole purpose of tripling the waiting period is nothing more than a way to score political points at the expense of victims.  These decisions should be made in a doctor’s office and not in Jefferson City,” said Grigsby.  “There is no discernible impact on the number of abortions but the consequences for women are real.”

House Bill 1307  (Sponsored by Kevin Elmer R-Nixa) expands the current 24 hour waiting period on abortions to 72 hours and does not make exceptions for victims of rape and incest.  This legislation is representative of the extreme nature in which the Republican Super-Majority has moved in our state.  

Gary Grigsby is running against Representative Dohrman for the 51st District in the Missouri House of Representatives which includes the parts of Saline, Pettis, and Johnson Counties.

                                                 

# # #

Yep, that about sums it up.

Previously:

SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)

Sen. David Pearce (r): fundamentally, a useful idiot (August 30, 2014)

Sen. David Pearce (r): poor, poor, pitiful me (August 30, 2014)

Until tomorrow (September 9, 2014)

The sane minority report

11 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

guns, Jill Schupp, missouri, override, SB 656, Twitter, veto

Via Twitter:

Jill Schupp ‏@JillSchupp

Omnibus gun bill arms teachers, lowers carry age, allows open carry and on and on. Not feeling safer…you ? 1:41 AM – 11 Sep 2014

Not as long as there’s a right wingnut controlled General Assembly…

Previously:

Fetishism (September 11, 2014)

Kansas City Mayor Sly James – Missouri Boys State – June 15, 2014 – on guns (June 14, 2014)

Fetishism

11 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, guns, Kevin Elmer, missouri, override, SB 656, veto

Via Twitter:

Eli Yokley ‏@eyokley

Rep. Kevin Elmer says the #MOLeg’s gun bill will allow citizens to stand up “against a tyrannical government.” 1:50 AM – 11 Sep 2014

Whack job.

Previously:

Kansas City Mayor Sly James – Missouri Boys State – June 15, 2014 – on guns (June 14, 2014)

Until tomorrow

10 Wednesday Sep 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, General Assembly, HB 1307, missouri, override, veto

You probably won’t have to wait seventy-two hours to find out if the right wingnut controlled General Assembly overrides Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of HB 1307.

In a yard in west central Missouri.

Previously:

SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)

Sen. David Pearce (r): fundamentally, a useful idiot (August 30, 2014)

Sen. David Pearce (r): poor, poor, pitiful me (August 30, 2014)

Sen. David Pearce (r): poor, poor, pitiful me

31 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

21st Senate District, abortion, ACLU, David Pearce, governor, HB 1307, Jay Nixon, missouri, seventy-two hour waiting period, veto

The republican cult of the victim.

Previously:

Sen. David Pearce (r): fundamentally, a useful idiot (August 30, 2014)

Call yourself what you want, obscure and manipulate language, it still doesn’t change the reality of what you are….

SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)

On the right to privacy:

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

[….]

Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs….

[emphasis added]

ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

….This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation….

[emphasis added]

Last Thursday morning there was a meeting in Warrensburg with Senator David Pearce (r), requested by some constituents, on the subject of HB 1307 and the upcoming override vote concerning the Governor’s veto of the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period for an abortion. An individual in attendance provided us with audio from that meeting.

Senator David Pearce (r) [file photo].

About thirty-two minutes into the meeting there was this remarkable set of statements:

Senator David Pearce (r): ….Some of you have probably seen, um, the Internet, uh, campaign against me. Uh, maybe you’ve gotten the robocalls.  And let me tell you who’s behind that. ACLU. And, uh, it’s not, there’s nothing that talks about pro life or abortion in that. It just says, uh, David Pearce should not, uh, be involved in your personal decisions. You want to talk to him? And then they, they automatically filter those phone calls to my office. Nothing [emphatic] about a seventy-two hour waiting period, nothing about babies being aborted. Nothing like that, so it’s a terribly misleading, um, uh [interrupted by a constituent question]….

Oh, the horror of having to explain yourself to constituents.

Apparently, just mentioning the ACLU is supposed to strike terror in the hearts of your constituents. Think about that for a moment – a politician in a room with a group of constituents that probably includes a significant number of ACLU members and sympathizers relates an anecdote that’s supposed to elicit, what, a negative opinion about the ACLU?

Really? As if anyone engaged in politics is required to use the language and memes of their opponents when they’re engaged in the rough and tumble struggle over issues?

The outrage could maybe be funny under other circumstances. In this case it’s just narcissism.

Uh, the ACLU is concerned about personal privacy. The issue of privacy and abortion was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court over forty years ago. Stare decisis.

Sen. David Pearce (r): fundamentally, a useful idiot

30 Saturday Aug 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

21st Senate District, abortion, David Pearce, HB1307, Jay Nixon, missouri, override, seventy-two hour waiting period, veto

Call yourself what you want, obscure and manipulate language, it still doesn’t change the reality of what you are.

Senator David Pearce (r) [file photo].

On the morning of Thursday, August 28th there was a meeting in Warrensburg with Senator David Pearce (r), requested by some constituents, on the subject of HB 1307 and the upcoming override vote concerning the Governor’s veto of the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period for an abortion. An individual in attendance provided us with audio from that meeting:

Constituent: …Thank you Senator [David] Pearce [r] for joining us here today. We really appreciate it. We know you have a lot of things on your schedule. Uh, what we wanted to talk to you about is the House Bill 1307, increasing the wait time between counseling and an abortion from twenty-four to seventy-two hours…

[approximately twenty minutes later]

Male constituent: …I have three daughters….I know in the debate, uh, and I, I heard on the news, uh, one of the rep[resentative]s said, was asked, what the appropriate waiting period would be…and he said, nine months. How absurd. And, and, I, I cannot believe that…

[….]

Another male constituent: …I’ve been a Republican since voting for Nixon, Richard not Jay, so I, you know I’ve supported you. I’ve been proud to do it. I’ve thought you’ve always shared my values in amongst political things and, uh, I, I’ve painted a little broader stroke of this, boxed all my speech, kind of took some lines I was gonna use. But, the Republican Party has, over the years, I went back and the Reagan, Reagan  years and all of those great years. I thought they really represented what I stood for. Leave people alone, let ’em live their lives, lets them do what they want to do. Okay, that’s always been the Republican way. And it seems like they’re drifting away from that, both federal and state level. Right now at the state level is a great concern and this issue of, of womens’ rights, it concerns me. I don’t like abortion.  I think it’s personally disgusting. The next time I get pregnant I probably won’t have one. However, however, I really, really believe it’s that woman’s right to choose, nobody else’s. I don’t want you, or the Republicans, Democrats, Jews, I don’t want anyone to tell me what to do with my body. It isn’t right. It isn’t, it isn’t the way in America. I don’t think it is. And I support the veto in this matter, I really do…

Another constituent: …Can we count on you to vote to sustain the veto of House Bill 1307?

Senator David Pearce (r):  Let me, uh, give some comments first. Um, this is a tough issue. I mean, uh, it is very emotional. It’s, uh, in many cases not a black and white issue and, and all of us have, uh, uh, strong feelings. It’s one of those core values, you know, that, that fundamentally you feel a certain way. And, um, those are things that, that, that don’t change. Uh, I’ve been a pro life candidate since the first time I ran in eighty-six and got defeated and, uh, when I ran in two thousand two, two thousand four, two thousand six, two thousand eight, and two thousand twelve. Um, very strong pro life candidate. Um, I’d just kind of like to talk about a few things I’ve heard and, and, and I appreciate and respect every one of you here, uh, for, for your thoughts. And I think it’s good we can get together and talk. Uh, although in the Senate it was a partisan issue. It was straight down party lines. Twenty-two to nine. In the House it wasn’t. So I don’t think that it’s something you can say it’s a Republican versus Democrat issue. Uh, there were probably at least twenty, uh, pro life Democrats that came to vote for the bill in the House. And so I think that, that would be, uh, somewhat, uh, misleading.  Um, I sat right behind the bill sponsor, David Sater [r]. Uh, he handled the House bill and he was the Senate bill sponsor. And it was a protracted discussion we had on this bill. And, uh, David said that, and, and the reason I bring this up is that you had mentioned to my secretary that, that maybe next year there might be a compromise or maybe there would be a way to, to alter the bill. Um, at two particular times David went to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and offered to go down to thirty-six hours. That was rejected. Uh, went back and said, can we go forty-eight hours, that was rejected. And the reason why the Democrat [sic] leadership said they rejected those bills was, no, we want it seventy-two hours because that will be easier to prove the unconstitutionality of the bill. And so when this was happening there was a chance, there was a dialog, a chance for debate, a chance for compromise and it was flatly rejected. So I think you need to be aware of that. Um, also, uh, just on the political side, just so you’ll get a little bit of background information on this, two very, very controversial bills, this and right to work.  And, and basically the Democratic Party, uh, said, we’ll sit down on the seventy-two hours if you won’t bring up right to work. So, um, this was used as somewhat political leverage on this issue. And so to say it’s a Republican versus Democrat there, there’s a whole lot more to the issue than that. Um, the one thing that, that I feel is lost in this whole discussion is the baby. You know, we talk about inconvenience, we talk about over population, we talk about poor versus wealthy. What about the baby? I don’t believe it’s a tissue, I don’t believe it’s a fetus, I believe it’s a baby. And when you take a life, you take a life. Uh, and so that’s my fundamental belief on that. I am not god, and when we’re talking about how many people should populate this Earth, that’s not our decision. Uh, and so I fundamentally think that somebody needs to stand up for that baby. Because he or she can’t make that decision. Somebody else is making it for them, somebody else is saying, you’re not gonna live. And so that’s why it’s such a huge fundamental core value decision for me and, and for others. And so, to me, I think, I think it’s a good thing when we’re having less abortions in our state. And we have. We’re down to, I believe, less than seven thousand in our state, I think it’s down to sixty-five hundred now. Um, we just have one abortion clinic in the state. I think that’s a good thing. Uh, if we were down to zero abortions I think that would be a positive thing. Uh, and so for those reasons, uh, I will vote to, to, uh, override the veto….

….I do believe in the case of rape or incest that, that abortion should be allowed. Uh, not all folks in the pro life community feel that way, but I do….

[….]

Still another constituent: Would you just address why seventy-two [hours] opposed to twenty-four [hours]?  What is the purpose of that?

Senator David Pearce (r):  Well, uh, both, uh, South Dakota and Utah have adopted that.  Uh, so we would not be the first state, we’d be the third. I think these are important life and death decisions and so the longer [crosstalk] that a, that a person has to reflect that.

Still another constituent: Do you think women make it frivolously?

Senator David Pearce (r):  What’s that?

Still another constituent: Do you think women make that decision frivolously? Because I don’t think they do.  I think they go through a lot of torment before that twenty-four hour counseling. I’m sorry, just my personal experience with people I know….

Still another male constituent: And now you’re making it for them….

[….]

Still another constituent: You didn’t answer why the seventy-two was better than the twenty-four.

Still another male constituent: Yeah, you didn’t answer that.

Still another constituent: And then it’ll be a week and then it’ll be a month. I mean, what is the point of this?

Senator David Pearce (r):  I, I fundamentally think these are life and death decisions. And the more that, that people can reflect and, and ponder on this I think it’s, it’s better. Uh, if it will decrease the number of abortions, uh, I think that’s probably a good thing. Uh, I just think it’s fundamentally something we’re gonna disagree on.

Still another male constituent: So, expand it to nine months.

[….]

“…So, expand it to nine months…”

That’s the goal.

Uh, if no republican voted against the bill and a small number of Democrats joined in to support it, it’s still a partisan issue. You know, there used to be pro choice republicans in the Missouri General Assembly. They were purged.

Uh, offering a “compromise” of thirty-six hours rather than seventy-two hours when you have a  twenty-two to nine advantage to begin with is no compromise. Further that says a lot about the “core value” of those remaining “compromise” hours. One hour, nine months, it makes no difference, does it?

“…went to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and offered to go down to thirty-six hours. That was rejected. Uh, went back and said, can we go forty-eight hours, that was rejected. …”

Think about that for a second. The republican majority offered a “compromise” which was rejected, and then subsequently they offered a worse “compromise”. Accepting the second “compromise” would be gross malfeasance on the part of the Democrats in the Senate. The republicans expected acceptance on the second offer? Idiots.

Interestingly, Senator Pearce’s (r) interpretation of republican dogma on the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period appears to be that the opposition was too clever by half in allowing the overwhelming republican majority to impose the full seventy-two hour period. Idiot.

“…And when you take a life, you take a life…”

“…I am not god, and when we’re talking about how many people should populate this Earth, that’s not our decision. Uh, and so I fundamentally think that somebody needs to stand up for that baby…”

Evidently, with your vote, it is your decision.

Kirk: What does God need with a starship?

If you’re for the death penalty and against Medicaid expansion in the State of Missouri (that intransigence on the part of the right wingnut controlled General Assembly is costing lives) and you’re against abortion you aren’t “pro life”. You’re against women controlling their own bodies. Period. If you’re a republican office holder in Missouri and you’re against the death penalty, you know that Medicaid expansion is the right thing to do, and you haven’t done anything about it then you’re nothing but a coward. Period.

“….I do believe in the case of rape or incest that, that abortion should be allowed. Uh, not all folks in the pro life community feel that way, but I do….”

That’s okay. Since they don’t appear too interested in promoting accessible health care for all and ending the death penalty it’ll fit nicely under their label.

Why seventy-two hours? Interestingly, we didn’t hear a rational explanation on that.

Senator David Pearce (r) is supposedly what passes for a “moderate” in the modern republican party. We haven’t seen any daylight between him and his party. He’s no “moderate”. In reality all he is for the republican majority and republican dogma in the Missouri General Assembly is a useful idiot.

Previously: SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)

SB 656: Bam!

14 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

education, governor, guns, Jay Nixon, missouri, SB 656, veto

Previously: SB 656: legislature of the gun (May 16, 2014)

[….]

…they make it illegal for you as parent to know if your kid’s teacher is carrying a gun, or qualified to do so. That’s insane…

[….]

Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed [pdf] SB 656 today:

GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI

[….]

July 14, 2014

TO THE SECRETARY OD STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 656 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 21.750, 84.340, 571.030, 571.101, 571.107, 571.111, 571.117, 575.153, 590.010, and 590.205, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof sixteen new sections relating to firearms, with penalty provisions.

I disapprove of Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 656. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 656 would allow Missouri school districts to designate teachers or administrators as “school protection officers,” who would be authorized to carry concealed firearms within those districts. I have consistently opposed the arming of teachers as a means to keep schools safe. It is is simply the wrong approach, and one that I do not support.

The safety of Missourians [] especially children – has long been a priority of mine, both as Governor and as the former chief law enforcement officer of our state. I have supported, and will continue to support, the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers in schools. This bill, which would create a new mechanism for the arming of teachers, would not make schools safer. Consequently, I am returning it without my approval.

In accordance with the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 656 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted

s/

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon

Governor

That’s sanity.

SB 694: reform this

10 Thursday Jul 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

governor, Jay Nixon, missouri, payday loans, SB 694, veto

“…House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 694 appears to be part of a coordinated effort by the payday loan industry to avoid more meaningful reform. This I cannot support…”

Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed SB 694 today. His veto message [pdf]:

Governor of Missouri

[….]

July 10, 2014

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 694 entitles:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 408.500, 408.505, and 408. 506, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof three new sections relating to unsecured loans of five hundred dollars or less, with penalty provisions.

I disapprove of House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 694. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 694 provides false hope of true payday lending reform while in reality falling far short of the mark. This bill cannot be called meaningful reform and does not receive my approval.

Supporters point to the lower cap on interest this bill would impose, but allowing payday lenders to charge 912.5% for a 14-day loan is not true reform. Supporters point to the requirement that payday lenders offer extended payment plans, but in states where payday lenders are required to offer such plans they are seldom used by borrowers. Supporters point to the legislation’s requirement for payday lenders to comply with “restrictions and prohibitions applicable to creditors contained in the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,” but the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not apply to creditors, which renders this requirement hollow. Supporters point to the prohibition on loan rollovers, but missing from the legislation is anything to address the unfortunately all-to-common situation where someone living paycheck-to-paycheck is offered multiple loans by multiple lenders at the same time or is encouraged to take out back-to-back loans from the same lender.

Although some may contend that House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 694 is an improvement over the status quo, it fails to protect consumers and fails to prevent the cycle of debt that payday lending perpetuates. Instead House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 694 appears to be part of a coordinated effort by the payday loan industry to avoid more meaningful reform. This I cannot support.

In accordance with the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 694 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

s/

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon

Governor

912.5% interest on a 14 day loan? Are there really people on this planet who think that’s reasonable? Wow.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • “Show me your papers. Pull down your pants.”
  • Never met a Fascist conspiracy theory he didn’t like
  • Cymbal clapper
  • Uh, in case you were wondering, land doesn’t vote
  • Show us on your diploma where the professors hurt you…

Recent Comments

Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…
What good is the 25t… on We are the only people on the…

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,041,756 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...