Put your hand on your wallet. You might want to keep it there as long as Kenny Hulshof is talking about “reforming” the Second Injury Fund. In fact, my warning about Hulshof’s shady motives is a corollary of this general rule: Count the silverware anytime Republicans propose to save the government money.

Hulshof says the Second Injury Fund, which compensates workers when an on-the-job injury exacerbates an already existing injury, will become insolvent in 2009. He blames Jay Nixon for that because second injury payouts have gone up from $20 million in 1993 to $63 million now. Hulshof proposes to save the fund by lowering the cap on onetime payouts from $60,000 to $40,000.

Naturally, Hulshof declines to mention, much less blame, Republican legislation in 2005 that capped the amount of the surcharges that could be levied against employers to keep the fund solvent. And although Hulshof accepts the PricewaterhouseCoopers study that backs up state auditor Susan Montee’s assertion that the fund is about to go broke, he conveniently skips the part of the study that he doesn’t like: to wit, that lowering the caps of onetime payouts would be poor business practice. (Inducing claimants to accept one time payouts instead of opting for lifelong payments saves the state money in the long run.) Oh and, by the way, PricewaterhouseCoopers also mentions that Nixon is doing a good job of administering the fund.

Oops. How inconvenient. And Hulshof believes in ignoring inconvenient information. He wants those caps on awards reduced because he doesn’t give a rat’s ass whether he saves the state money in the long run; he just wants to keep the Second Injury Fund underfunded enough so that he can, a la Norquist, drown it in a bathtub someday.

Ever since the Republican Golden Boy, Attorney General William Webster, got sent to the pen in the early nineties for treating the Fund as his private warchest, the state GOP has had it in for SIF. Anything to please Wal-Mart and Ameren UE. Screw the little guy.

Webster, in case you’ve forgotten your state history, was caught promising attorneys for plaintiffs in Second Injury Fund suits that if they’d put some goodies in his campaign warchest, they’d get favorable treatment from lawyers defending the Fund. Ever since then, SIF has been both a sour reminder of an embarrassing moment and a symbol of all the bleeding heart sympathies of Democrats. Republicans hate it.

Last year they tried to sneak the management of the Fund out of the AG’s office and put it in the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Nathan Cooper–who’s since been sent to the pen for infractions of a different nature than Webster’s–defended the move, once the tactic came to light. Jeff Harris called the attempted stealth legislation a reminder of “the tawdry reign of William Webster as Attorney General of Missouri”.

Bad enough that Republicans won’t give up on their sneak attacks, but to paint them as altruistic concern for the little guy? Hey. Kenny. I’ll believe you’re serious about preserving the Fund so it can help injured workers. Sure I will. Just as soon as octopi speak English.

Brett Penrose is probably wondering if their commercials will feature older male session musicians:

So the Republican National Committee just did a conference call with local reporters to counter Obama’s St. Louis visit. Often you’ll get a prominent Missouri politician to give the talking points of the day. So who was the lucky attack dog?

Governor Matt Blunt? Nope. He’s unpopular, and caught in his most recent scandal over destroying e-mails.

Lt. Governor Peter Kinder? I don’t think so. His chief of staff was just caught in a sting making explicit online exchanges with a 13 year old.

Leading Republican candidate for Governor Rep. Kenny Hulshof? I don’t think so. Kinder’s chief of staff used to be his district director.

How about Senator Kit Bond? He has decent approval ratings, at least, right? Sorry, but he doesn’t really like McCain, most recently criticizing McCain’s gas tax holiday. So he’s out.

Maybe somebody out of state but in the region, like Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley? Well, McCain apparently doesn’t like him, once calling him a f—-ing jerk.

So that leaves… Frank Donatelli? Donatelli is the liaison between the McCain campaign and the RNC, and he’s also a party hack and megalobbyist. He’s lobbied on behalf of Ethiopia’s government, continuing the tradition of McCain associates who lobby for bad regimes. He’s also lobbied for PhRMA, Exxon Mobil, AT&T, Verizon, and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

This is just getting ridiculous. Has McCain dropped all pretense at being a reformer?

For years, my cousin seemed uncomfortable, to say the least. She was bright and outgoing as a child, but soon after she hit adolescence, she withdrew, almost seeming anguished when any attention was focused on her. I didn’t think much of it at the time; after all, it’s hardly unusual for a teenager to become moody and self-conscious. But this “phase” lasted for years, until well after graduation, and the years didn’t visibly alter her moods. She was probably about twenty when my sister, who is much closer to her than I am, told me the reason for my cousin’s anguish. She’s a lesbian in a small town, and she couldn’t count on anybody in her environment, whether at home, school, or work, to understand what she felt. Now things have changed for her. She’s told the family about her sexual orientation, and after some adjustment, most of us now accept her as she is. She has a committed partner now. While I have no idea if they would have plans to get married if that were possible, they are probably more committed to each other than some married couples I have known. She is really happy now, the same bright, outgoing person I knew her to be as a child before being interrupted by the confusion of teenage years. And I’m happy she is happy, and I’d like to keep it that way. Which is why I get so angry when the LBGT community gets tossed around like a football every time an election comes up. And why I’m upset with Jay Nixon right now.

More below the fold.

In case you somehow missed it, the California Supreme Court in mid-May struck down the ban on gay marriage in the state. In reaction, conservatives in California will put a ballot initiative forward asking voters to approve or deny a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Matt Blunt and Kenny Hulshof have been taunting Jay Nixon for a few days to file a brief asking the California Supreme Court to delay implementing its decision until voters can weigh in via the ballot initiative.  And on Wednesday, Nixon gave in.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Republicans over the last 8 years, it’s that they don’t care if you give in, if you agree with them, or if you cave on an issue. They’ll still call you a gay terrorist-lovin’ atheist abortionist. And true to form, Blunt gloated when Nixon caved:

“Though it is nearly a week overdue, I am glad Nixon finally answered my call and joined with other attorneys general as he should have done last Thursday,” Gov. Matt Blunt said in a statement. “Missourians overwhelmingly believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and they deserve an attorney general who stands up for traditional marriage because it is the right thing to do, not because they receive pressure from others.”

At a minimum, why couldn’t Jay Nixon have pointed out that this is a non-issue in the state and the Missouri voters have serious matters before them, like a looming recession, skyrocketing gas and health care prices, and a housing crisis? Pragmatically, I realize that Nixon is not going to push for the repeal of DOMA or the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but to go out of state to fight against same-sex marriage, well, that just feels like he’s kicking my cousin.

I was going to point out that the Democratic AG candidates would also face similar challenges on same-sex marriage from the Republicans, but in glancing at the news before finishing this post, I see that Jeff Harris has already answered Republican Michael Gibbons on just this matter:

“As Attorney General of the State of Missouri, I will consistently work to support and uphold the constitution that governs our state.

“However, the issue being raised by Senator Gibbons is not one that presently affects our state. Senator Gibbons is attempting to distract the voters – notably in the very first press release of his AG campaign – with rhetoric that is more about divisiveness than substance. These are actions I cannot and will not support.

“If I had Senator Gibbons’ record of caving in to corporate interests instead of fighting to protect consumers, I think I would rather talk about a California court ruling, too.”

That’s good. I’ll update if and when anybody else chimes in.

It’s Hulshof, Kinder, and Steelman on the GOP side of the governor’s race, and my guess is that Hulshof will be the one to beat.

It’s true that he’s never run for statewide office and has no statewide organization in place, as Kinder and Steelman do. He doesn’t have any name ID around the state either, for the same reason. The lack of an organization could be important, but the name ID? Tell the truth. How many of the Republican voters know who Kinder and Steelman are either? One in 10? In 25?

And Hulshof has some big advantages. First, he’ll have money, and he’s got Bond’s support. His D.C. contacts will help him haul in the cash. Kinder has his share of wealthy contacts, especially among developers and businessmen in  St. Louis and Kansas City. Steelman’s biggest cash source will be trial attorneys. We’ll get a better idea at the end of the cycle (end of March) whether their sources can match Hulshof’s.

Another Hulshof advantage–but one that Steelman can neutralize–is his reputation on the ethics issue. He has no obvious ties to the boy-gov who could conceivably end up being indicted for … one of his many shady deals … before the election. Kinder, though, tied to the current administration as he is, will be tarred with the same brush when the subject of corruption arises–not to mention the subject of Medicaid cuts.

Hulshof, on the other hand, according to everybody, is “squeaky clean.” Even the liberal-leaning Post-Dispatch editorial page gave kudos to Kenny for being tossed off the House Ethics Committee after contributing to a report that criticized the ethics of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Actually, Hulshof’s apparent distance from Blunt is a mirage. He’s hired John Hancock, Blunt’s main man, as his consultant. But that detail will escape most voters. They’ll assume Hulshof and Blunt are barely, if at all, acquainted. While they’ll be mistaken in not associating Hulshof with Blunt, his association with Bush is undeniable:

A quick look at Hulshof’s record: Hulshof has voted with President Bush more than 92% of the time and voted with the Republican Party 95% of the time.

He’s been a proponent of the Iraq War from the get go and opposed the expansion of SCHIP. Kinder and Steelman might not point those problems out, might not see them as problems. But trust the Democrats to mention it.

Steelman is the only one of the three without damaging ties to damaged goods. And, like Hulshof, she has some credibility on the ethics issue herself, having stuck by her ethical guns by “withholding tax incentives from an ethanol plant with investors who have first-degree ties to elected officeholders.” Since the main such officeholder was Sam Graves, she was standing up to one of the big boys.

On the other hand, Steelman’s squeaky clean image gets smeared by the fact that she is employing Jeff Roe, one of the dirtiest campaigners around. And she’ll be hurtin’ for certain soon about her job performance as an investor. Steelman serves on the board of the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS). The fourth quarter 2007 MOSERS investment report is due out soon and it’s not going to be pretty:

Informed observers note that risky bets on Steelman’s watch could expose state taxpayers to  hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.  Under Steelman, MOSERS has gambled heavily on real estate, timber, foreign stock markets, foreign debt, distressed debt, job-killing corporate buy-outs and go-go hedge funds.

So. Plenty of negatives to go around for all three of these contenders. And whichever one of them gets nominated, the negatives will still be there.