Various news sources have reported that Former State Representative Keith English is dead in an apparent suicide. He served two terms in the General Assembly from 2013 to 2017. He ran for reelection as an Independent in 2016, losing to a Democratic Party candidate by over 2400 votes/14%.
The final vote to override Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of SB 509. Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D) (left) – bearing witness, Representative Keith English (center) – casting the 109th vote necessary for the override, and Representative Ron Hicks (r) (right) – his escort on and off the House floor. May 6, 2014.
In May 2014 then Representative English was the only Democrat in the House to vote to overturn Jay Nixon’s (D) veto of a republican tax cut bill. His vote, the last one cast (see photo), was the deciding vote in the override.
Keith English has a just filed a committee to run as an independent in the 68th Legislative District. Oh, and his campaign just got a check for $50,000.00.
The final vote to override Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of SB 509. Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D) (left) – bearing witness, Representative Keith English (center) – casting the 109th vote necessary for the override, and Representative Ron Hicks (r) (right) – his escort on and off the House floor. May 6, 2014.
C161309: Citizens For Keith English
Committee Type: Candidate
Party Affiliation: Independent
1445B Woodcrest Manor Lane
Ballwin Mo 63011
Established Date: 08/04/2016
[….]
Candidate
Keith English
2016 State Representative District 68
We thought there were other interests, but, apparently, he’s back.
And this, too:
C161309 08/04/2016 CITIZENS FOR KEITH ENGLISH Ehren Earleywine 9065 Blake Dr Columbia MO 65201 University of Missouri – Columbia 8/2/2016 $50,000.00
A resolution filed today by Representative Keith English (I):
HCR 70
Urges Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005, which requires uniform driver’s licenses or state identification cards
Sponsor: English, Keith (068)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2016
LR Number: 5839H.01I
Last Action: 01/12/2016 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HCR 70
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
This is legislative equivalent of demanding everyone else give you oxygen when you’ve come to after passing out holding your breath in a temper tantrum.
And as if the republican controlled Congress has the will to act on anything right now.
The legacy of the Missouri General Assembly’s tantrum:
Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 302
Drivers’ and Commercial Drivers’ Licenses
3. The department of revenue shall not amend procedures for applying for a driver’s license or identification card in order to comply with the goals or standards of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, any rules or regulations promulgated under the authority granted in such act, or any requirements adopted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for furtherance of the act.
[….]
Let’s see, George W. Bush (r) was president and the republicans controlled Congress in 2005.
Don’t hold your breath that this will get fixed anytime soon. Better spend your time and money, if you’ve got it, getting a U.S. passport.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS: Voted “Do Pass” by the Standing Committee on Workforce Standards and Development by a vote of 9 to 3. Voted “Do Pass” by the Select Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations by a vote of 6 to 2.
This bill specifies that, except in instances when these provisions conflict with or are preempted by federal law, any person as a condition or continuation of employment cannot be required to:
(1) Become or refrain from becoming a member of a labor organization;
(2) Pay dues, fees, assessments, or other charges to a labor organization; or
(3) Pay to any charity or third party any equivalent amount in lieu of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of a member of a labor organization.
Any agreement, understanding, or practice between a labor organization and an employer that violates the rights of employees as guaranteed under these provisions is declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect.
JEFFERSON CITY • Missouri House Democrats lost another member Tuesday, bringing their total number in the House to 44.
Rep. Keith English, a union electrician from Florissant, Tuesday announced he will represent his district as an Independent. English was elected in 2012.
Last year, English abandoned his Democratic colleagues and sided with Republicans to enact a tax cut over Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto. Republicans needed one Democrat to reach the supermajority required to override the veto and English provided that necessary vote….
There’ll be no measurable effect on the Democratic caucus. You’re usually supposed to time these kinds of things so that when you leave they’ll actually miss you.
In Dostoyevsky’s novel, The Idiot, one of the characters, Nastassya, who has been seduced by a rich nobleman, is offered the chance to redeem her social standing through marriage to an ambitious young man, Ganya, whom the nobleman has offered a large sum of money to marry her. In an act of mad defiance Nastassya, in the presence of most of the individuals involved in her situation, refuses not only Ganya, but a disinterested offer of marriage from the hero, Prince Myskin, takes money offered to her by another admirer, Rogozhin, in return for the promise of her favors, throws it in the fire, telling Ganya to pull it out and take it if he wants it. She then leaves with Rogozhin, cementing her future as a demimondaine, exiled from respectable society. Through her act she denied the nobleman, Totsky, a way to escape his guilt for, in the terms of the time, “ruining” her, as well as showing up the moral emptiness of her society.
Nastassya’s grandiose, self-destructive gesture has always fascinated me. Was the momentary satisfaction worth it? She herself, after all, embraces the world view that will put her, as the mistress of Rogozhin, beyond the social pale. But powerless though she may be against the male-dominated world she lives in, she has, nevertheless, asserted her autonomy and embraced her destiny through her own free will.
Why am I talking about a nineteenth century novel now? In a word, Ferguson, and all the fallout thereof. If the connection doesn’t seem that obvious to you (and why should it?), just bear with me – although I may come up short on the melodrama when compared to Dostoyevsky.
One manifestation of the Ferguson fallout is today’s news that a coalition of African-American officials in St. Louis County have decided not to support the Democratic candidate for St. Louis County Executive, Steven Stenger, but rather to endorse Republican Rick Stream. Yes, that Rick Stream. Proto-Tea Partier, pal of the corrupt, massive beneficiary of lobbyists, sharia-fearing fantasist, cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face type of right-wing ideologue, etc., etc. Just the kind of guy who’ll be doing his best for the rich and powerful in St. Louis County, and to hell with the type of folks who’ve been out in the streets protesting the treatment African-Americans have received from the power structure.
But hey, it’s a poke in the eye for Steve Stenger and the Democratic aparatus that supports him, and to those doing te poking, I’m sure it feels as glorious as when Nastassa watches Ganya grovel in the fire for Rogozhin’s money. The coalition members claimed that they were angry about “what they characterized as “years and years of disrespect” by party leaders.” I’m sure that’s true. The timing of this announcement suggests, however, that Steve Stenger’s firm support of the County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s role in overseeing the investigation into the Michael Brown shooting may have been just one slight too many. According to one of the coalition members, “Steve Stenger’s unbreakable alignment with Bob McCulloch shows he will be unable to run the executive office independently and without influence.”
Maybe. I personally am not impressed by Stenger’s support for McCulloch which smacks of an effort to appease those folks who think a few nights of rioting in Ferguson are vastly more horrifying than the shooting of an unarmed teenager by a man entrusted with the safety of the public – and who were, no doubt, more than ready to toss a black county executive out on his backside. Nevertheless, the old cliche leaves us to believe that there is such a thing as out of the skillet and into the fire. Do these black officials really believe that Stream represents a party that will be inclined to show them much respect in the long run? Do they really think that he’d abandon McCulloch if given his druthers – no matter what he might say behind closed doors?
But don’t get me wrong. I’m not criticizing these folks. If I had the wherewithal, I’d be willing to jump from my own skillet into the GOP fire. For me the target would be Rep. Keith English (D-68), the SOB who sold out his party and gave legislative Republicans the last vote they needed to override Governor Nixon’s veto and enact SB509, a rich-man’s tax cut that has the potential to wreck the state’s social and economic infrastructure. That’s not all. He’s a real piece of the smelly stuff. He has, for instance, played an active role in the Missouri front of what is usually a strictly GOP war on female reproductive choice. In 2013 he brought SB298 to the floor of the Missouri House, a bill that would “require an ultrasound to be conducted and reviewed with the pregnant woman prior to the 24-hour waiting period for an abortion.” A real sweetheart for sure.
English was unopposed in last month’s primary and will likely win another term in the legislature. While, as I indicated above, he’s bad news, I do have to admit that he probably has the potential to vote occasionally in ways that are preferable to his Republican opponent, Rehka (Becky) Sharma. He’s been a reliable vote for labor in the past. Nevertheless, what he did in regard to SB298 is so egregiously bad that if it were up to me, he’d be exiled to the ninth ring of Hell.
Since I don’t live in the 68th district, English isn’t really my direct problem. But, while I don’t think I could tell people they should vote for Sharma, I couldn’t tell them to “suck it up” and vote for English either, which is almost as bad as voting directly for the Republican. So, I do understand just why the anti-Stenger officials have done what they did, and while I wish they were better, smarter than me, I can’t condemn them. I’d love to see Keith English burning in Hell and if they’d like to see Stenger twist and turn a little, I can’t play holier than thou.
And if, because we’re self-indulgent, we, in our little ways, help hand the state over to the GOP wrecking crew, to borrow an image from Thomas Frank, maybe it’ll be all for the best in the end. Maybe the sooner the Republicans take us the full Kansas route, the sooner Missourians will throw the clowns out. There was no happy ending for Nastassya, but, perhaps the inevitable, crashing right-wing failure will be enough to finally put Missouri back on the right track – even though we’ll all have to pay dearly for the nasty little detour we will have taken.
* First sentence of 5th paragraph amended slightly for clarity.
Citizens for Keith English 755 Pelican Lane Florissant MO 63031 7/22/2014 $4,500.00
[emphasis added]
[….]
We’ll find out when at the time the 30 day after the election report is filed (by September 4th).
[….]
Representative English stated via social media that he returned the check. That July 22, 2014 contribution did not show up on Representative English’s eight day before the election report which closed on July 24th and which was filed on July 28th. At the time we wrote:
….It’s possible that the check was still in the mail….
The Missourians for Excellence in Government PAC has not filed an amended “8 Day Before Primary Election-8/5/2014” report. There’s this from their “8 Day Before Primary Election-8/5/2014” report filed on July 28, 2014:
27. Money On Hand at the close of this reporting period $70,653.65
[emphasis added]
That’s the same report that showed a $4,500.00 campaign contribution to Representative English’s committee.
The Missourians for Excellence in Government PAC filed a “30 Day After Primary Election-8/5/2014” report on September 4, 2014. There’s this in the summary:
24. Money On Hand at the beginning of this reporting period (Including funds in depository, cash, savings accounts and all other investments) $70,653.65
[emphasis added]
The closing numbers for the July 28th report and the opening numbers for the September 4th report are the same. There’s no adjustment in the report that indicates that the $4,500.00 contribution was returned.
Representative English’s campaign committee also filed a “30 Day After Primary Election-8/5/2014” report on September 3, 2014:
2. All Monetary Contributions Received This Period $0.00
[emphasis added]
Nope, there’s no $4,500.00 contribution there. Nor has Representative English’s campaign committee filed an amended “8 Day Before Primary Election-8/5/2014” report.
The question remains: what happened to the $4,500.00?
Tony Messenger, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, via Twitter:
Tony Messenger @tonymess
Since @keithenglishmo cast the deciding vote to give @rexsinquefield his tax-cut win in session, guess who his biggest donor is? King Rex. 2:41 PM – 5 Aug 2014
@keithenglishmo @rexsinquefield You do know that the Missouri Ethics Commission records are public, right, Keith? 2:46 PM – 5 Aug 2014
The conversation continued:
Rep. Keith English @keithenglishmo
@tonymess @rexsinquefield Tony! We did our homework and sent check back! Thanks for acknowledging that happened! 2:52 PM – 5 Aug 2014
Tony Messenger @tonymess
@keithenglishmo @rexsinquefield so a random committee randomly sent you money? When did you send it back? Before or after you typed ‘wrong!’ 2:53 PM – 5 Aug 2014
Citizens for Keith English 755 Pelican Lane Florissant MO 63031 7/22/2014 $4,500.00
[emphasis added]
According to the Missouri Ethics Commission web site the closing date for the 8 day before the election report is July 24th. It’s possible that the check was still in the mail.
The contributions listed in Representative English’s July 28th campaign finance report:
FEAPAC of Missouri 11880 College Blvd Overland Park KS 66210 7/11/2014 $1,000.00
Liberty Mutual Insurance co 1101 14th St. NW Boston MA 02117 7/11/2014 $1,000.00
Right Choice Managed Care, INC PO Box 68086 Cincinnati OH 45206 7/11/2014 $500.00
Shelter Insurance 1817 W. Broadway Columbia MO 65218 7/11/2014 $500.00
MBA River Heritage Region 207 East Capitol Jefferson City MO 65101 7/11/2014 $1,000.00
Bank of America 1100 North King Street Wilmington DE 19884 7/11/2014 $300.00
The Traverlers Indemnity Co PO BOX 11 New Castle DE 19720 7/11/2014 $1,000.00
Comcast Financial Agency 1701 JFK Blvd Philadelphia PA 19103 7/11/2014 $500.00
MOSFA INC 121 Madison St Jefferson City MO 65101 7/11/2014 $1,000.00
American Family Insurance PO BOX 1925 Jefferson City MO 65102 7/11/2014 $300.00
The Doe Run Company 1801 Park 270 Drive St Louis MO 63146 7/11/2014 $500.00
[emphasis added]
Delaware?
The Twitter conversation continued:
Tony Messenger @tonymess
Re: @keithenglishmo claim he returned @rexsinquefield check? ‘To date I have not received any correspondence’ from him says @DwyerRice 3:32 PM – 5 Aug 2014
Chris McDaniel @csmcdaniel
@tonymess @keithenglishmo @rexsinquefield @DwyerRice Also, the PAC calculated its current cash on hand w/ assumption check had been cashed.3:34 PM – 5 Aug 2014
And, finally:
Rep. Keith English @keithenglishmo
@csmcdaniel as stated by my campaign committee, returned to sender! 3:37 PM – 5 Aug 2014
We’ll find out when at the time the 30 day after the election report is filed (by September 4th).
….Moreover, the revenue triggers in the legislation only apply until the tax cuts are fully phased-in. After that time, under the legislature’s own estimates, there would be at least $620 million less in general revenue available each and every year, regardless of whether revenue collections are going up or down. In addition, the legislation’s annual cost would continue to grow above the legislature’s $620 million annual estimate because the income bracket adjustments in the bill for increases in the consumer price index would continue indefinitely. See Section 143.011.3. This provision alone would result in an additional $128 million in annual revenue reductions ten years after the legislation is fully phased-in, increasing each year in perpetuity….
[emphasis added]
A bill cannot be bipartisan when it needs a majority of only one party to pass it.
….English was a special guest at a private reception for Republican lawmakers on Tuesday night. He told members that he wanted to vote in favor of the bill when it was first brought up in the House, but that he was urged by Republican leadership to hold off until the override vote in an attempt to avoid pressure from Democrats, including the governor.
When you find yourself in a deep hole the first rule is to stop digging.
While the House was in session today, working to complete the process on budget bills by the deadline on Friday, we spoke with three representatives about the veto override vote of SB 509. Representative Keith English was the only Democrat in the General Assembly to vote to override Governor Nixon’s (D) veto:
Representative Keith English (D)(center) – May 6, 2014.
Show Me Progress: So, it’s been an, uh, something of an interesting week for you, hasn’t it?
Representative Keith English (D): Uh, it’s been a very interesting week. You know, um, I worked very hard with both sides of the aisle this week to make sure that, uh, we try to do what we can to make the state move forward, be more competitive with other states, stopping right to work and paycheck deception, stripping teachers of their pensions and the tenure. Um, I had to look really deep into, uh, legislation that we can be more competitive. And I think this bill is definitely gonna do that.
Show Me Progress: You’re, you’re referring to Senate Bill 509.
Representative English (D): Senate Bill 509, that’s correct. Senate Bill 509, uh, will take a two year period, the next two years, we’ll look at, uh, how much money we generate. Then on the third year, through the next five years after that, if, and that’s the big word, if, we can get small businesses, which are the backbone of this, this state, uh, to help generate seven hundred and fifty million dollars to the good, uh, we will, uh, give a little bit back to those businesses to reinvest in their companies to expand more.
And with the rising cost of health insurance, uh, under Obamacare, uh, and insurance companies, uh, dropping companies for uh, for different reasons, uh, and the possibility of the federal government increasing minimum wage to a possible ten dollars and ten cents an hour I feel strongly that we have to do something to tell the small businesses in Missouri, don’t move away, we’ll try to help you. Um, in my district we have businesses that are struggling so bad, uh, and with business of course, and if we can give them some incentive to hire more people, ’cause a lot of them have cut back, cut back to three and four employees when they had five and six. And being a small business owner, um, I know exactly what that feels like.
Show Me Progress: But, uh, didn’t, you know, in some ways, uh, uh, the, the concept of sort of an economic stimulus, per se, with this kind of, uh, cutting back of, of revenue in the sense of, of tax cut, per se [crosstalk] it’s, it’s, the bill made it structural though, and something that can’t be rolled back.
Representative English (D): Well, in the bill [crosstalk]…Well, there’s a failsafe in there, in case, if we don’t hit that hundred fifty million the bill dies. The bill will not move further. It has to, for the five years, has to increase a hundred and fifty million. The failsafe in this bill is, is that it will not cut funds to education. We have to increase seven hundred fifty million, if we don’t the bill’s moot. There’s a lot of people out there that are saying that there’s a possibility that this bill will not move forward, but we have to do something. We do have the lowest taxes of any state neighboring us, we do have the best cities, the best home structures, we have the greatest people and tools and resources. I don’t know what else to do to bring big business here. We’ve had Chrysler move out. Ford closed up and moved out. We’ve had so many businesses that have moved out of state. And if that’s the, the, the issue there, as we have lowest taxes, Florissant, that I represent, is one of the best places to retire. I want to make sure that this continues for a long time. And the only way I could see to do that in the legislation that we have, and the ideas that we have bipartisan sitting at the table, and I believe this was a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately the Governor vetoed it, it made it a partisan issue. I had four, maybe five other Democrats that wanted to be with this bill but just couldn’t go against the Governor. And I had to do something.
[….]
Representative Stephen Webber (D) [file photo].
Show Me Progress: So, how would you, how would you characterize the, uh, the vote on, um, the final vote on, uh, the override on SB 509?
Representative Stephen Webber (D): I mean, it’s certainly shortsighted, uh, to begin with. You know, if, if it’s a good idea it’s something that we should do now. The fact that people pushed off, um, the tax cuts so that they’ll never have to deal with the consequences of their actions, they’ll never actually have to budget, they’ll never actually have face the reality of not funding schools. Um, to me, that, that’s very irresponsible.
Show Me Progress: Would you characterize the bill as bipartisan?
Representative Webber (D): No, absolutely not. No. No, it’s clearly not. I mean, um, getting you know, less than two percent [one person] of the Democrats doesn’t make it a, a bipartisan bill.
Uh, I’ve described it as, it’s like, it’s like boiling a frog. You know, you put frog, a frog in the water and you turn up the heat. And so it feels good at first, and then it starts slowly, by the time you realize you’re burning, you’re boiling it’s, it’s too late. Uh, that’s the way this bill works. I mean it, it doesn’t, uh, fully implement for seven years at the earliest. And so every single member of this General Assembly will be termed out, um, before they have to face the true impact of cutting school funding, of not funding higher education. And at that point, all people are gonna know is there not money, there’s not money for these projects. They’re not gonna know who’s fault it is, they’re not gonna know who to blame, they’re not gonna , they’re not gonna say, oh, let’s go back to, in twenty twenty-two they’re not gonna say let’s go back to twenty fourteen and look at who voted for this bill. I mean, that’s not gonna happen. [crosstalk] Um.
Show Me Progress: Uh, so for, um, and, and, to be clear, the, the, the only way that the, the, the, the bill is reversible is if it comes to a vote of [crosstalk] of…
Representative Webber (D): We have to change the law again, right.
Show Me Progress: Well, you have to change the, and the change will have to go to a vote of the people due to the Hancock amendment.
Representative Webber (D): Correct. Correct.
Show Me Progress: And, and so, there is no sunset clause on any of this.
Representative Webber (D): No. Uh, and, and, they keep saying there’s these triggers and, and the folks that know that, uh, they know that’s incredibly misleading. They know that every year, um, that, the hundred fifty million dollars a year that you have to hit is eaten up very quickly in, in, you know, mandatory, uh, spending for federal match programs, um, I mean, inflation, population growth. It, it clearly will result in a, uh, cut to education funding. And they either, um, most of them know that and they’re just misleading people. Um, those that don’t know that are just uninformed.[….] It clearly will result in education cuts.
[….]
Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D) – May 8, 2014.
Show Me Progress: So, I want to talk with you about the, uh, Senate Bill 509, the veto override.
Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D): Uh huh.
Show Me Progress: Um, would you characterize, what, what would you characterize, the, the long term effect of the bill?
Representative LaFaver (D): Unknown. I think that there are a lot of things up in the air, particularly with the section that the Governor pointed out, that eliminates the top bracket. I think the long term effect, um, is truly unknown. It’s either gonna be bad or it’ll be devastating.
Show Me Progress: Would, would you characterize, uh, any part of the bill as bipartisan?
Representative LaFaver (D): No.
Show Me Progress: [….] Do you, is there, is, is there any easy way to fix any of the problems in the bill?
Representative LaFaver (D): No.
Show Me Progress: [….] Is there any kind of sunset provision in the bill?
Representative LaFaver (D): No.
Show Me Progress: None whatsoever?
Representative LaFaver (D): No. In order for us to fix it, uh, through the legislature anyway, we would have to pass something and then it would have to go to the voters as a tax increase. And so, if we’re gonna try and fix the, uh, section that the Governor is talking about we would have to then go back and approve a tax increase of four point eight billion dollars and ask Missourians to increase their taxes by four point eight billion.
[….]
There are people in Missouri and out who are laughing last.
