Yesterday, via Twitter, a response to Representative Scott Fitzpatrick (r):

Sean Nicholson @ssnich

.@FitzpatrickMO You’ve tweeted a bit today about HRC emails. Do you think #MOLeg should remain exempt from MO Sunshine Law? 3:31 PM – 10 Mar 2015

That’s a really good question. Heh.

Pirate Fish image courtesy of the CotFSM.

The Missouri Constitution has an establishment clause in, not one, but two places. The first:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

[emphasis added]

And, in another place in the Missouri Constitution:

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

[emphasis added]

A bill, introduced yesterday by Representative Scott Fitzpatrick (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 687 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE FITZPATRICK.

1463H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 173.1104, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to financial assistance awards for theology degrees.

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

Section A. Section 173.1104, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu

thereof, to be known as section 173.1104, to read as follows:

173.1104. 1. An applicant shall be eligible for initial or renewed financial assistance only if, at the time of application and throughout the period during which the applicant is receiving such assistance, the applicant:

(1) Is a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States;

(2) Is a resident of the state of Missouri, as determined by reference to standards promulgated by the coordinating board; and

(3) Is enrolled, or has been accepted for enrollment, as a full-time undergraduate student in an approved private or public institution[; and (4) Is not enrolled or does not intend to use the award to enroll in a course of study leading to a degree in theology or divinity].

2. If an applicant is found guilty of or pleads guilty to any criminal offense during the period of time in which the applicant is receiving financial assistance, such applicant shall not be eligible for renewal of such assistance, provided such offense would disqualify the applicant from receiving federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

3. Financial assistance shall be allotted for one academic year, but a recipient shall be eligible for renewed assistance until he or she has obtained a baccalaureate degree, provided such financial assistance shall not exceed a total of ten semesters or fifteen quarters or their equivalent. Standards of eligibility for renewed assistance shall be the same as for an initial award of financial assistance, except that for renewal, an applicant shall demonstrate a grade-point average of two and five-tenths on a four-point scale, or the equivalent on another scale. This subsection shall be construed as the successor to section 173.215 for purposes of eligibility requirements of other financial assistance programs that refer to section 173.215.

[emphasis in original, added strike through emphasis illustrates text to be removed]

Chapter 173 RSMo refers to higher education and, in part, scholarships and tuition aid programs administered by the state.

The bill listing on the House web site:

HB 687

Specifies that any benefits afforded to students enrolled at an institution of higher education shall be afforded to students enrolled at a theological or divinity school

Sponsor: Fitzpatrick, Scott (158)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 1463H.01I

Last Action: 01/26/2015 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

Bill String: HB 687

[….]

[emphasis added]

How do the changes in HB 687 conform with the requirements of the Missouri Constitution? Just asking.

Today I learned that state Rep. Scot Fitzpatrick (R-158), who represents predominantly rural Barry County, is sponsoring a bill, HB1355, that would exempt day care businesses in similar counties from state regulation, while allowing the local jurisdictions to enact alternative rules should they feel the need for any regulation. To put this in perspective, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that “all but six of 56 child care deaths in Missouri from 2007 through July 2011 occurred in unlicensed home day cares.” Recently, one of those deaths, that of baby Izabella Moore, has been in the news as her parents seek to unseal records pertaining to her death in an unlicensed Perry County day care facility in which fourteen children were left in the care of one adult. Indications are that the child was left unattended in a basement for several hours during which time she died. Not surprising given those circumstances, though the fact that the unlicensed day care in question is still operating is indeed perplexing.

But Rep. Fitzpatrick does actually have an reasonable case to make:

The way Fitzpatrick sees it, most child care providers in his area cannot afford to come into compliance with state licensing standards.

He said they lack the staff to meet state standards for adult-to-child ratios. He said they can’t survive under the state’s enrollment limits, which cap their number of paying clients.

He’s right. Barry County, which is typical of many rural Missouri counties, has a poverty rate of 18%; the median household income is about $38,000. Women make up half the population and it’s likely, given the economic make-up of the county, that many Barry County mothers have to work if the family is to survive. It’s also likely that many of those families can’t afford to meet the costs for quality child care – which, in turn, means that there will be few day cares that offer such care.

Nevertheless, if Rep. Fitzpatrick is right about the conditions that lead to substandard child care operations, he is not right about the remedy. Wouldn’t this be the time to propose beefing up state child care assistance? It is certainly true that Missouri hasn’t been overdoing such assistance:

Unfortunately the State of Missouri has one of the weakest Child Care Assistance Programs in the country.  Missouri’s eligibility requirements for Child Care Assistance are among the most stringent of all the states (you have to be poorer than families in all but four other state to qualify for assistance in Missouri) and the state’s assistance payments are the lowest.  In Missouri child care providers are reimbursed for providing services at only about half the market rate.  The federal standard for reimbursement of providers is at 75 percent of the market rate.  Missouri has not increased its child care reimbursement rate since 1999.  […]

It is equally true that, as the Missouri based Vision for Children at Risk (VCR) notes, that quality child care “is critical to the development and well-being of children,” a fact that affects the well-being of our society as a whole. The VCR also adds that the purpose of state funded child care assistance is “is to enable families to gain employment and remain employed” while securing acceptable care for their children. I may be wrong, but I think I’ve been hearing lots of Republicans gassing on and on about how the poor have to work. Why then make them choose between the well-being of their children and the need to feed them? Could it be because nobody thinks these folks matter? Rep. Fitzpatrick’s legislative remedy certainly implies that poor people in poor jurisdictions don’t deserve quality care for their children.

Rep. Ftizpatrick is, however, willing to go out on a limb to provide relief to one class of Missourians, namely the wealthy. He was vigorous in his defense of last year’s misguided and ultimately defeated tax cut for the rich, HB253, and will undoubtedly be hitting the hustings to campaign for this year’s variant of tax relief for the rich and connected. That he can do so while throwing up his hands, saying nothing can be done about poverty and the state of child care for the poor except relegate their children to the type of day care that might be the norm in a third world country says volumes about the type of country that Republicans want us to become. If I didn’t think it was hopeless, I’d say somebody ought to describe the benefits of progressive tax reforms to the Representative while disabusing him of some of the rightwing trickle down mythology that allows the wealthy to make out like bandits at the expense of the rest of us.

One last fact that should excite wonder: Barry county votes overwhelmingly Republican and it’s more than likely that Rep. Fitzpatrick’s disdain for the children of his constituents will be spun as concern for their plight – and most of them, desperate to get along during hard times, will go along with the spin. Lots of them will also think that he’s right to go after taxes – even though many of them will end up on the short end of the stick. Because P.T. Barnum was right: there’s a sucker born every minute.