…Throw out your breakfast garbage, and I’ve  got a hunch, that the folks downstream will drink it for lunch…

Previously:

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): bad, bad EPA, bad (August 15, 2014)

Vicky Hartzler talking about water and pesky regulations at the Missouri State Fair (August 14, 2014)

What if you had a ham breakfast and the Governor couldn’t be there? (August 14, 2014)

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) spoke Thursday morning at a republican press conference in the Farm Bureau building on the grounds of the Missouri State Fair in Sedalia shortly after the Governor’s Ham Breakfast. He was joined at the press conference taking issue with proposed EPA rules on water by Senator Roy Blunt (r) and Representative Vicky  Hartzler (r). They also criticized regulation in general.

hy•drol•o•gy  noun  hī-ˈdrä-lə-jē</a>

a science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on and below the earth’s surface and in the atmosphere

– hy•dro•log•ic or hy•dro•log•i•cal adjective

The video:

“…the way this rule reads as soon as one drop of water falls out of the sky EPA is on it. And that is a scary thought. Stop and think about that. As soon as one drop of water falls from the sky. It’s hydrologically connected to all the rest. Now the can technically get to it…”

Uh, why is that scary, is it because pollutants and contamination are stopped at an imaginary right wingnut miniature environmental border fence?

“…got a number of amendments in there to try and rein in the [Army] Corp [of Engineers] as well as empower the Corps to do a better job at what they’re doing…”

Apparently to right wingnuts those two actions are synonymous.

“…Uh, but EPA is not our friend, generally…”

Tell that to the people of Toledo, Ohio. Or South Tucson, Arizona. Or Times Beach, Missouri.

“…If we don’t push back they’ll push us…”

That, friends, is the right wingnut view of what America should be. In a nutshell.

The transcript:

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer: ….I, too, want to extend my congratulations to all of you for all the hard work that you did in trying to support and get, uh, Amendment 1  [“right to farm”] across the finish line. Now, before I got up here a while ago somebody said keep my remarks crisp. So, that’s a new word, I hadn’t heard that before, it’s like, sure, I can be crisp. So we’ll keep, so we’ll keep it crisp here. But, uh, I did, I did want to congratulate you. I know it was a tough, tough, uh, uh, issue. There was a lot of concern about it. Uh, my office got a lot of calls on it, in fact, the last few weeks. And I tell people the best thing that happens is people call. They were concerned enough because of confusion out there that they took the time to call. And we could explain to them that this was an important issue because while it, it doesn’t necessarily do everything in the end to stop this, it puts a hurdle in the way. It put one more barrier for HSUS [The Humane Society] to come in and negatively impact our way of life, our agricultural industry as a whole, and or food supply in general. And so I think, uh, it was a great, great, uh, victory the other night. Uh, and we’re gonna continue to work with you and support you whatever, if they do a recount on it. So, let us know how we can help. Uh, but, again, thank you for all you do for agriculture.

With regards to the, uh, Waters of the U.S. proposed rule the other day we in the Small Business Committee which Sam Graves is the chairman of, and I’m vice chair of, he called a hearing. We had the number two person from EPA at the hearing. And boy did that gut get an earful. I mean, we have people from all over the country who, who are on our, on our committee that Democrats and Republicans both went after this guy, saying this was the most ridiculous thing you could imagine. And there’s, there’s a word in the law really is, is the sleeper in this whole thing. And it’s hydrological. All the water that’s hydrologically connected, so, in other words, every piece of, of, molecule of water that is connected to another one they can tech, technically regulate that. And so it was interesting because the EPA director was sitting, or number two person sitting there said, ah, no, we’re not gonna do anything about this. This is all about, you know, the waters that we can navigate. And the ones that we can oversee and blah, blah, blah. You know, it was interesting, because the real people in the real world who are on the panel who also testified said, you know what, the way this rule reads as soon as one drop of water falls out of the sky EPA is on it. And that is a scary thought. Stop and think about that. As soon as one drop of water falls from the sky. It’s hydrologically connected to all the rest. Now the can technically get to it. So, I think the, uh, you know, we fought this issue a couple years ago and beat it back. We have to stay united and work together, all of the different groups, all the industries, ag should take the lead, but there’s a lot of other issues out there that we’re working with as well that we have a direct in this and we need to work those as well.

Um, when it comes to, uh, other water issues there are things that are, I am directly im, im, impactful on and really like to work on from from the standpoint of the Missouri River and Mississippi River issues. Uh, we had, uh, a bill recently, a water bill that went through, got a number of amendments in there to try and rein in the [Army] Corp [of Engineers] as well as empower the Corps to do a better job at what they’re doing along the Mississippi and Missouri River. We stopped some unnecessary duplicative studies that are wasting money, also helping to empower EPA to do more regulation, and so we were able to cut some of that out. Uh, but EPA is not our friend, generally.  And as a result we have to be very careful to whenever they say they’re here to help us ’cause quite frankly they’re, generally they’re not. But, uh, all you know that.

Continue working with us. We’re excited about the opportunity to represent you in Washington and fight these battles. Together we can win, together we can push back. And I always tell people, I say, you know, when you don’t agree with what’s going on you gotta get to us, get us information, and we gotta push back. If we don’t push back they’ll push us. We have to stay united, you have to push back, don’t give in, don’t give up, and we’ll win.

Thank you very much.

“…Corporations are people, my friend….human beings, my friend…” Someone else said that somewhere a while back.

Video by Jerry Schmidt.

Read this in the the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday:

Ameren Corp. boosted earnings by 57 percent in the second quarter, in part because of higher refueling costs last year at its nuclear power plant in Callaway County and warmer weather this spring.

Not surprising. According to an editorial in the same paper, we now now know that Ameren has been hiding the full extent of its profits as one of its large corporate clients, Noranda Aluminum, has charged in a dispute over the rates the utility has been charging:

The dispute over whether Ameren has earned more than the 9.8 percent profit established by the PSC [i.e., Public Service Commission] makes that painfully clear.

The PSC sets that target return on investment whenever a utility seeks a rate hike, by balancing the company’s need for growth and profit with consumers’ need for affordable, consistent rates for electricity. Because Ameren is a monopoly, the PSC’s role is to provide the pressures that might otherwise be provided in a competitive environment. To keep Ameren honest, the company is required to file “surveillance reports” to show whether it is earning more than is allowed.

But the PSC has determined those reports are confidential. So, for several months, a select number of attorneys and others involved in the previous rate case have known what the reports show: That Ameren has over-earned by tens of millions of dollars over the past year.

[…]

Late last month, just before the PSC’s hearing on Ameren’s over-earning was to begin, a judge finally opened up the reports. From July 2012 to March 2014, they show a consistent pattern of Ameren earning above its regulated rate of return. It can be argued that money rightfully belongs to Ameren’s consumers, not its shareholders. The over-earning, depending on who is doing the counting, is currently somewhere between about $25 million and $60 million a year.

The editorialist has a point. Given its monopoly status, there ought to be some way to insure that Ameren shows its customers at least as much regard as its shareholders. Instead Ameren has played poormouth and requested rate increases regularly – successfully most of the time, increasing its rates as the Post-Dispatch notes, “more than 40 percent in the past six years.” But the biggest issue I see with Ameren isn’t the question of consumer rates which are still relatively low. In the same article from which the first quote above was taken, I also read that:

CEO Warner Baxter reiterated the company’s concerns with the proposed federal rules regulating carbon dioxide, especially the interim goals that begin in 2020. The proposed rules, which would mainly affect the company’s generating plants in Missouri, “are unworkable from a customer standpoint,” he said.

Even with the proposals, Baxter said, the company isn’t planning to change its long-term resource plans, and it plans to continue using its power plants through the end of their useful life.

“We are not contemplating accelerating the retirement of our coal-fired units as part of our integrated resource plan because we think that’s in the long-term interest of our customers and the state of Missouri,” Baxter said in the call.

Let me recap all that I’ve learned from just one issue of the Post-Dispatch:

— Ameren is swimming in big profits.

— Aneren is attempting to hide this happy circumstance from the public it ostensibly serves in order to gouge yet more profit from its customers.

— Ameren is also relying on old, dirty technology that contributes to climate degradation and is a threat to public health.

— Ameren claims it can’t afford to implement an orderly transition to cleaner energy production without raising rates excessively to do so.

Essentially, this very profitable enterprise claims it can’t handle the cost of doing business in a responsible way without gouging its clients – the same folks it’s been regularly hitting up with rate increases while earning excessive profits. Does any of this inspire trust?  

Do you think that this situation has anything to do with the “private” part of that private-public hybrid status that Ameren enjoys? Private entities are, of course, concerned only with the most efficient way to maximize profit, not service. And in the case of Ameren, the private segment of the enterprise seems to have corrupted the public part. On the topic of the failure of the PSC to keep Ameren’s welfare and the public welfare it supposedly represents in equilibrium, the Post-Dispatch editorialist notes that the legislature has little incentive to beef up public oversight given that “Ameren also employs lots of lobbyists and makes lots of campaign donations.” And indeed, a KSHB TV report observed that “Ameren lobbyists give lawmakers the most gifts total of any corporation tracked.”

Does anyone but me think that maybe the issue isn’t confined to the question of whether or not electric rates are fair, but whether our private-public utility is doing what is best for Missouri’s energy future, not to mention the health and welfare of Misourians. Ameren is certainly doing its best to live up to the “private” part of their mission by rigorously fighting for the shareholder’s bottom line, but isn’t it time for the “public” aspect of this supposedly regulated monopoly to manifest itself?

It can never cross the state line. Think about that for a minute.

A bill, prefiled by Representative Chrissy Sommer (r) on December 11th:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1163

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES SOMMER (Sponsor) AND ENGLISH (Co-sponsor).

4453H.01I         D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 21, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to states rights to limit the commerce clause from controlling goods produced or manufactured in Missouri.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 21, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 21.950, to read as follows:

           21.950. 1. This section shall be called and may be known as the “Intrastate Commerce Act”.

           2. The general assembly declares that the authority for this section is the following:

           (1) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States;

           (2) Amendment IX of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not enumerated in the Constitution and reserves to the people those rights;

           (3) Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States codifies in law that the only powers which the federal government may exercise are those that have been delegated to it in the Constitution.

           3. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms mean:

           (1) “Basic materials or parts”, raw materials physically and directly associated with the finished product in the manufacturing process;

           (2) “Goods”, all real or personal, tangible or intangible property;

           (3) “Produced”, grown, mined, extracted, or created.

           4. All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of this state that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of this state shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce. This section shall apply to goods that are manufactured within this state from basic materials or parts. The authority of the Congress of the United States to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials or parts shall not include the authority to regulate goods manufactured within this state from such materials or parts.

           5. This section shall not apply to the following:

           (1) Goods manufactured within this state unless the words “Made in Missouri” are clearly stamped or marked on an integral part of the good;

           (2) Goods produced within this state unless the words “Product of Missouri” are clearly stamped or marked on the container or packaging; or

           (3) Goods ordered, procured, or purchased by the United States government or by any contractor under an agreement with the United States government.

[emphasis in original]

More tenther drivel.

What manufacturer or business in their right mind would want to restrict the sale of their product(s) to a smaller market just to avoid the tyrannical fist of the all powerful Federal government? Yeah, that’s what I was thinking, too.

Early in August I wrote that among other state-level strategies to derail Obamacare:

GOP lawmakers have learned a thing or two from their “War on Women” strategy of regulating reproductive choice almost out of existence, and seem to be using the same regulatory approach to sabotage the Obamacare exchange. Otherwise religiously anti-regulation GOPers have decided that they must rigorously regulate individuals, known as navigators, hired to help Missourians use the exchanges lest they engage in “fraud.” And if they manage in the process to slow the information stream to a trickle, well, what can you do?

A recent Salon article by Brian Buetler makes it clear that this effort to keep reliable information from those who most need Obamacare has become a coordinated national-level strategy, directed toward those states with the most to loose, those that have the largest uninsured populations. Prominent among these states is Missouri which is now on the receiving end of both state-level and national-level Obamacare obstructionism:

For the most part, Republican state elected officials have undertaken the most direct efforts to stand between uninsured people and Obamacare – refusing to launch their own exchanges and expand Medicaid – while Republicans in federal office fight a more symbolic fight.

But now a group of House Republicans has crossed that line – by attempting to bog down Obamacare enrollment specialists in states with the highest uninsured populations, according to a new Salon analysis.

Last week, as several other outlets reported, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to state agencies and nonprofit groups that received Obamacare “navigator” grants – organizations that will help educate people about the law and facilitate their enrollment – seeking an incredibly broad and difficult-to-compile range of information.

In order to do the most harm, the House Republicans directed their inquiries to organizations in 11 states with larger uninsured populations than in other states – including Missouri. As Beutler notes, claims that the inquires are meant to protect the privacy of those using the exchanges ring hollow since the Committee members seem unconcerned with protecting the privacy of Obamacare exchange users in any of the remaining 39 states, instead, he writes, the “targeting scheme was meant to maximize bang for their buck.” Supporting this contention is the timing of the inquires; Beutler quotes Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA):

“The timing of these letters is particularly suspect,” Waxman wrote in a letter to Upton protesting the investigation. “You are insisting on voluminous document productions by September 13, just when these groups need to be focused on their mission of helping uninsured Americans enroll for coverage. Indeed, it appears that these requests may have been sent solely to divert the resources of small, local community groups, just as they are needed to help with the new health care law.”

This latest bit of flim-flam is only the most recent in a long string of efforts to derail the healthcare delivery reforms we democratically authorized in the election of 2008 and reaffirmed in 2012. The Republicans who were sent to do the people’s business in Washington D.C. have even descended to the level of trying to intimidate national sports franchises to keep them from helping publicize Obamacare benefits. This level of opposition is beyond cynical; it’s truly vile.

I am a cancer patient. Last Friday, I learned that I am, after a lengthy and complex treatment process involving two surgeries and seemingly endless chemotherapy, in remission. I happen to have access to good insurance and received truly excellent care. I cannot imagine what would have happened if I had been uninsured – although one thing I am sure of, given the nature of my particular cancer symptoms, is that I would have been diagnosed at an even later stage of the disease and I would likely be dead now, rendering questions of my ongoing care moot.

From this perspective, I not only want to know what is being done to counteract this disgusting effort to hurt real, actual people in the name of a trumped-up, long-discredited, rightwing ideology that sees efforts to use collective resources for public benefit as some type of suspect “socialism” that must be stopped at all costs. I also want to know who is going to publicize the evil perpetrated by Republican Obamacare fraudsters during the past few years. I want their names and their crimes on a publicly accessible list.

I want the Republicans in Missouri who have participated in these and other Obamacare charades, who have promulgated disinformation and outright lies to be held accountable in a way that hurts them as much as they have hurt the citizens of the state. I have never been an eye for an eye kind of person. I have always scoffed at the whining of crime victims who carry on as if they and they alone have the right to determine what punishment is adequate to the crimes carried out against them, but this time I want to know that Republicans who have participated in GOP’s descent into evil will have to pay.

…and people are actually listening. The tenor of the conversation has changed substantially. Now it actually exists.

A bill, introduced in the Missouri General Assembly on February 7, 2013:

HB 494 [pdf] — Possession of a High Capacity Firearm Magazine

Sponsor: LaFaver

This bill creates the crime of possession of a high capacity firearm magazine, a class D felony, and specifies that a person commits this crime if he or she knowingly possesses, owns, uses, manufacturers, purchases, or sells a firearm magazine that is capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition. No person will be prosecuted for possessing a high capacity magazine if it was in his or her possession prior to August 28, 2013, but may be prosecuted under any of the other provisions of the bill. The bill does not apply to any law enforcement officer if the possession, ownership, use, manufacture, purchase, or sale of a high capacity magazine occurs in the performance of his or her official duty.

Today, via Twitter:

Yael T. Abouhalkah ‏@YaelTAbouhalkah

And my comment on Lee Judge’s ‘American Sniper’: It made exactly the right point; we need fewer guns in this country, not more. 4:54 PM – 17 Feb 13

Editor’s Note

Valid point of Lee Judge cartoon has been distorted

February 17

By MIRIAM PEPPER

Kansas City Star Editorial Page editor

A week ago Saturday, Lee Judge drew a political cartoon on gun control. The idea for the cartoon came to him from the news. The honored “American sniper,” Chris Kyle, one of the nation’s best wartime shooters, was tragically gunned down by a troubled veteran whom he was attempting to help. Judge viewed the fact that Kyle became a gun victim as a direct contradiction to NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre’s much-publicized statement: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Judge’s point: If a clear “good guy with a gun” can be killed by a gunman, can more good men with guns lessen violence….?

….Judge had every right to zero in on the disconnect between good men with guns and killings. I’m proud of his work, and I approved his cartoon for publication. I would do so again.

The night before the cartoon was published, I sent him a congratulatory note on an especially strong cartoon. I’m glad he heard from me before he was subjected to such hateful and uninformed vitriol.

If the NRA sends out a mailing and no one fears an F anymore, will it still make a sound?

@RepHartzler Rep. Vicky Hartzler

House just passed bill to keep American energy affordable by ensuring coal ash is not considered a hazardous waste by EPA. 2 hours ago

You first.