Blog 2.1

Wednesday’s post regarding a controversial bill in the US Senate got me more comments this week than I usually get in a month. Today there is more news about this bill: the bit requiring “grassroots” political bloggers to register and report to Congress as lobbyists has been struck from the bill.

Worth noting, however, is that I discovered more detail about how the bill defines “grassroots lobbying firm”:

(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm’ means a person or entity that–

(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.’.

As such, it appears the bill was targeted at such things as radio talk shows funded by advertisers (thus the Republican opposition) and other “astroturfers” (think fake grassroots). It would not, however, target media funded by contributors like MoveOn.org.

Would this section of the bill been a positive element if it had been retained? I still think it’s hard to say. Personally, if the bill was supposed to target “astroturfing” then I think it should have done so more clearly. As it was written, however, the bill seemed to target the activities of one party and not the other (which explains the partisan split on the vote).

For anyone from Missouri who’s counting, Kit Bond (and the rest of the Senate Republicans) voted to remove the controversial section of the bill. Newly elected Senator Claire McCaskill (and all but seven Democrats) voted to keep the section in.

While the jury is still out for several races across the country, the results are in for Missouri. I’m happy with some of the results and frustrated by others. I think the results of the races reflect what has always been a conflict in Missouri – an urban/rural conflict of interests.

Claire McCaskill easily carried Kansas City (as expected) and as I’m writing this seems to have carried Missouri by about 40,000 votes. I’ve already expressed my views on Ms. McCaskill’s campaign so I won’t repeat myself. What’s left to do now is see which of her conflicting positions she’s actually going to pursue and if the Democrats will actually be able to follow up on any of the big promises they’ve been making.

My choice for State Auditor, Progressive Terry Bunker, stood virtually no chance against the established party candidates. Personally, I don’t understand what party affiliation has to do with being Auditor. Bunker was the only candidate for the office actually bringing a specific agenda to the table in place of the typical empty campaign slogans like “prevent corruption” and “support Missouri taxpayers.” Bunker had specific, realistic plans to improve the financial efficiency of Missouri government – practical, easily implemented initiatives like energy audits. Once again, however, party politics and grand (empty) campaign slogans won out over actual, achievable plans.

The current US House Representative from Missouri District 5, Reverend Emanuel Cleaver II, was re-elected yesterday. Again, my current understanding of Reverend Cleaver’s contribution was outlined last week so I won’t repeat myself except to say that I think he is wasting taxpayer time and money. It’s no mystery, however, why a black Democratic minister is popular in Jackson County. I just hope the current momentum behind the Democrats will inspire worthwhile legislation instead of more House resolutions like the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

My choice for 10^th District Missouri State Senator, Democrat Jolie Justus, easily beat her opponent, Republican Jerry Mounts. I think Mounts lost a battle of information. Perhaps reflecting his age, Mounts did not have a campaign website. In 2006 there is no excuse for this. Independent voters make their choice based on information, and the internet has become the most accessible, informative source available. In ignoring the internet Mounts lost votes by limiting his supporters to lever-pulling Republicans and voters who make their decisions based on 30-second television commercials. Even if I don’t agree with all of her issue standpoints, at least Ms. Justus knows what year it is.

Mike Talboy was elected 37^th District Missouri House Representative – unsurprising considering he was unopposed. I glanced at his website this morning, and a message has been posted that says, “This was a fun and challenging campaign. We were victorious because of your help and hard work.” Challenging? He was unopposed! If he thinks that was tough, I don’t think he could possibly live through an actual contest. I hope he can live up to his campaign promises of supporting an increased minimum wage and legislation supporting stem-cell research… oh wait, that was already taken care of by popular vote yesterday. Well, since he’s fulfilled his campaign promises already I guess he can go ahead and take a vacation.

My choice for Jackson County Executive, Democrat Mike Sanders, easily defeated his Republican challenger, Bob Gough. Gough fell victim to the same problem as party mate Jerry Mounts – little or no information available. All I knew about him is what I had heard before leaving Kansas City 10 weeks ago – that he wants to stop what he feels is Kansas City’s pandering to the team owners in regards to the new Truman Sports Complex. His website is extremely unprofessional. It offers almost no information about where he stands on the issues, it looks like it was designed by a mediocre high school student, and there is a link to what seems to be a young couple’s wedding pictures. Like Justus, Sanders does not represent my views as well as I would like, but I’d rather choose someone I actually know something about than take a gamble on someone who still doesn’t seem to think he needs to make his views known.

Before moving on to the questions on yesterday’s ballot, I would like to mention that Missouri had a decent voter turnout yesterday of roughly two million people – about 40% of eligible voters. While I still don’t think that less than half of our voters turning out is something to brag about, it’s still better than a typical off-year election. I just hope the majority of those voters were not uninformed (or misinformed).

Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2, the “stem cell initiative” amendment, appears to have narrowly passed. I was hoping that it would not pass because I have a strong suspicion that the bill has much less to do with stem cell research than politics. The actual text of the document does so many legal acrobatics that I think we’ve only succeeded in making the issue more complicated. Time will see the effect of this amendment played out.

Missouri Constitutional Amendment 3, the “tobacco tax” amendment, appears to have narrowly failed. I don’t think the four cent tax on each cigarette is fair or necessary. Rather than using smokers’ money to pay for other people’s healthcare, why not let smokers keep their money? They’re going to need it for their own healthcare expenses in time. Personally, I think so-called “sin taxes” are ludicrous. Special taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are as ridiculous as taxing potato chips, and it adds unnecessary complexity to an already overly complex tax system.

Missouri Constitutional Amendment 6, the “tax exemption for veterans organizations” amendment, appears to have passed easily. To be honest, I don’t feel strongly about this issue one way or the other. I did support the amendment, however, because I think that veterans organizations deserve tax-exempt status as much or more than many other currently tax-exempt groups. Hopefully, this amendment will benefit Missouri’s veterans, and I don’t think the lost state revenue will be significant enough to have an impact on the budget.

Missouri Constitutional Amendment 7, the “elected officials compensation pensions” amendment, has passed with over 80% of the popular vote. I think this one was very straightforward. If you are elected to public office and commit a felony, then you forfeit your state pension. Public representatives are held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens, and asking that they refrain from committing a felony is not an unreasonable request.

Missouri Proposition B to raise the state minimum wage to $6.50 has also passed with about 75% of the popular vote. I had hoped that it would not because I don’t feel that it is an appropriate action for the state as a whole. This is perhaps the clearest conflict between urban and rural areas in Missouri. Unemployment in Missouri is currently 5%. That’s low enough that if you want a job, you can find one. The job market is strong, and if you show even a little bit of personal responsibility and work ethic I guarantee you’ll be making more than minimum wage without a government mandate. I really don’t see the minimum wage increase benefiting low-income urban populations because many unskilled jobs already pay that much due to competition for workforce. Flipping hamburgers in Palmyra may pay minimum wage, but I’m sure McDonalds in St. Louis is already paying at least $6.50 an hour to reliable employees. Now consider the McDonalds in Macon. That restaurant pays its employees less than the one in St. Louis because it makes less money. For rural employers, lower wages reflect modest profits and a lower cost of living. I’m sure the teenage employees of Macon’s McDonalds are happy about the wage increase, but I predict a lot of rural employers will be cutting jobs to accommodate higher wages. In the end, I think this is a feel-good proposition that isn’t going to benefit people in the city and will hurt some people in rural areas. Such a mandate is unreasonable for a state as socially and economically diverse as Missouri. I believe there is a case for municipal or regional “living wage” regulations (perhaps an increased minimum wage for St. Louis and Kansas City) but that’s an issue for another day.

Kansas City Questions 1 and 2 regarding fees for fire inspections and a transportation tax, respectively, are close races and the Kansas City Election Board shows only about half the precincts reporting at the moment. I’m hoping Question 1 fails because I think charging a fee for fire inspections is a bad idea. It will encourage some people skip inspection to avoid the fee, which places building inhabitants at risk. The fire inspection service is already funded through city taxes, and I feel that additional fees are unnecessary and counter-productive. I hope Kansas City voters support Question 2, the renewal of a 3/8-cent transportation tax to fund, among other things, the development of a light rail system and electric bus service. I think Kansas City could benefit greatly from a light rail system – especially if that system were to branch out to accommodate the hoard of commuters that swarm on K-10 and I-35/435 every day. Kansas City has always been a railroad city, and if city planners can come up with a solid plan to implement light rail before the transportation squeeze in Kansas City becomes critical, then I think it could certainly be successful. I also feel that there is a lot of promise for an electric bus system, and it could ultimately prove to be financially beneficial to the city as well as environmentally friendly.

So there you have it, my views on the issues on the Kansas City ballot in 2006. If you read all of this, I’m impressed. If you’re tired of hearing me rant about politics, then you’re also in luck. Hopefully after election news dies down I’ll be able to focus on other things… like the theme to Trogdor being included in Guitar Hero 2.

Okay. Election Day is only a few days away. Hopefully I’ll be able to pull away from politics just a little and keep from pulling my hair out before the Holidays. Until then, I’m going to continue to thrill the half-dozen or so of you reading this with more rants of frustration.

First of all, I was a little annoyed by the lack of choice on my ballot. There were ten contests in which I could vote for candidates; five of them were unopposed. My policy for unopposed races is not to vote in them. I expect the candidate will vote for himself, and without opposition that’s all that will be required. While I can understand why some of the races are unopposed (the Missouri House districts of Kansas City proper are decidedly Democratic) it still would have been nice to have been given a choice between different positions. I think I’m going to have to start a new political party – Governmental Engineers. We’d focus on problem solving, efficiency and avoiding public speaking.

One of the nice things about being an engineer rather than a scientist is that engineers know when something is insignificant enough to ignore (i.e. assume a perfectly spherical horse). This ability to prioritize would come in useful in today’s political climate. You see, where an engineer might be worrying about eliminating wasteful earmarking ($27.3 billion spent on fluff programs to get representatives reelected – see page 2) our US House spent some time this fall hashing out the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Yes, the consumption of horse meat by humans had gotten so out of hand in our country that it deserved the attention of the US House of Representatives. I will certainly sleep much better at night knowing that the federal government is present to make sure Americans aren’t eating their livestock.

If you take a look at this important piece of legislation, you might notice that a Missouri House Representative co-sponsored the bill, the Reverend Emanuel Cleaver II, former mayor of Kansas City. I can see why he might be so concerned with this issue – what would pull the carriages in the Plaza at Christmas if all the horses are eaten? Motivated by his inspiring participation in pushing the horse meat bill through the House, I decided to look a little deeper into Representative Cleaver’s history of sponsoring legislation.

Taking a look at the biography posted on his website, I discovered that Representative Cleaver prepared himself for a political career by studying Sociology as an undergraduate, obtaining a Masters in Divinity from St. Paul’s School of Theology, and serving as a Methodist minister. Now, I want to make it very clear that I am not trying to discredit students of theology, and I admire the benevolence of those who enter ministry with the intent of improving people’s lives. I do, however, have reservations about the degree to which Representative Cleaver was qualified to participate in government. That said, let’s look at the legislation he has co-sponsored this year.

Reverend Cleaver co-sponsored 96 pieces of legislation that were introduced this year (All this information is made available to the public in a conveniently searchable form online). Let me give you some highlights (in order as they appeared in my search results).

H.CON.RES.335 : Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 97th anniversary.
Sponsor: Rep Green, Al [TX-9] (introduced 2/8/2006)

H.CON.RES.384 : Recognizing and honoring the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African Americans.
Sponsor: Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] (introduced 4/6/2006)

H.CON.RES.386 : Honoring Mary Eliza Mahoney, America’s first professionally trained African-American nurse.
Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] (introduced 4/6/2006)

H.CON.RES.399 : Recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the victory of United States winemakers at the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting.
Sponsor: Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] (introduced 5/3/2006)

H.CON.RES.451 : Honoring John Jordan “Buck” O’Neil and urging his induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
Sponsor: Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] (introduced 7/19/2006)

H.RES.657 : Honoring the contributions of Catholic schools.
Sponsor: Rep Kennedy, Mark R. [MN-6] (introduced 1/31/2006)

H.RES.693 : Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to childhood stroke.
Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] (introduced 2/16/2006)

H.RES.894 : Congratulating Avery Johnson for being named the 2006 NBA Coach of the Year and for leading the Dallas Mavericks to their first Western Conference Championship.
Sponsor: Rep Jefferson, William J. [LA-2] (introduced 6/27/2006)

H.RES.940 : Recognizing the 185th anniversary of the independence of Peru on July 28, 2006.
Sponsor: Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] (introduced 7/24/2006)

H.RES.1055 : Honoring the Fisk Jubilee Singers.
Sponsor: Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] (introduced 9/28/2006)

H.R.5401 : To amend section 308 of the Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act to make certain clarifying and technical amendments.
Sponsor: Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] (introduced 5/17/2006)

H.R.5994 : To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Farmington, Missouri, as the “Robert Silvey Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic”.
Sponsor: Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] (introduced 7/28/2006)

Breathtaking, isn’t it? Actually, I’m starting to feel sick to my stomach. It’s not that I don’t think people deserve recognition for their accomplishments, but does the House really need to be devoting precious time to honoring the winemakers for winning a contest 30 years ago? But wait! It gets better! We pay each and every House Representative, including Reverend Cleaver, $165,200 a year. We pay him that to participate in a Congress that was projected to be in session this year for a mere 99 days – the least number of days Congress has been in session since 1948. That comes to $1668.68 for each (7.6-hour) day, $219.56 per hour in session. Also, House Representatives got a raise of $3,100 this year.

Think about that before you vote… but try not to throw up on your ballot.

Claire McCaskill was on CNN this morning for an interview. Not a single word was said about Missouri, the Midwest, or even the United States. Instead it was Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.

I especially liked the part where McCaskill claims that “two years, give or take some months” is not a deadline. Funny, to me that sounds like a deadline of 2 years and “some months.”

Setting a soft deadline for withdrawal, however, will have exactly the same effect as withdrawing immediately. Telling the Iraqi government that we’re going to remove our military presence is not going to suddenly make them more capable. If they don’t have the muscle to forcibly disarm violent militias, then they’re certainly not going to have it without US backing. Some people think we need to just withdraw from Iraq in order to ease the burden on our military and ready ourselves to react to other potential threats - and I think there is merit to that argument. Regardless, that position should be stated clearly as a withdrawal.

Even the Wall Street Journal is taking note of McCaskill’s fuzzy commitments,

“When it comes to elaboration, however, the positions she takes don’t so much straddle the political divide on national security as occupy both sides of it. On Iraq, she doesn’t support a timetable for withdrawal, but told us that the Bush administration should “privately” tell the Iraqi government the U.S. will pull out, eventually. On North Korea, she opposes rewarding Kim Jong Il with bilateral talks, but blasts the president for a general “aversion” to direct talks. On terrorist surveillance, she supports wiretapping international calls of suspected terrorists, just not the way President Bush has gone about it. And so on.”

To me, this only confirms my earlier suspicions that Mrs. McCaskill will say whatever she thinks will get her elected - which leaves no one knowing what she will do if she’s actually elected.

I faxed in my request for an absentee ballot today. By the look of things, there should be a close race this November. But who to choose? I haven’t done much in the way of serious research about the two candidates for Senate, but I’m already getting that familiar feeling of dissatisfaction with both front running candidates - thanks in large part to their debate on Meet the Press yesterday.

I found it extremely annoying that the debate started with the Foley “scandal.” As most people discovered late last night or this morning, there is no shortage of events that are more important. So a pervy senator sent inappropriate messages to a page. Come on! It’s not like he raped the kid! Was it inappropriate? Sure! And Foley was right to resign - just like any business person who engages in sexual misconduct should. Is a 16 year-old boy smart enough to stay away from a creepy old man? Absolutely. I was no dummy at 16, and I’m sure someone sharp enough to get a page position wasn’t either. The fact that this thing has been played up as some major political event (when we should be discussing real problems on the eve of an election) is sickening. Both Senate candidates lose points with me for wasting time on the topic. They argue over if the results of the “investigation” should come out before the election. I hope they don’t, simply because this issue should be at the bottom of the priority list. McCaskill says the Speaker should resign. I think we have enough to deal with at the moment without vacating Senate leadership positions because Hastert didn’t install NetNanny on Senators’ computers. The responsible party lost his job and destroyed his reputation. End of story. Let’s move on to issues of actual importance.

McCaskill lost points with me on the Iraq debate for the same reason as most Democrats. She acts like the reason Republican leadership doesn’t want to set a withdrawal timeline is because they want our military to be in Iraq forever. I have no doubt that everyone involved wants to resolve the conflict and withdraw. I also have little doubt that announcing a timeline would only encourage the people lobbing bombs at our troops to hunker down and wait for them to leave - then start another violent pursuit of their goals when our troops are conveniently not present to stop them. If McCaskill (and the Democrats) want to change our military methods, then start giving some examples of what you would do differently. Simply stating a deadline to send our troops elsewhere does nothing to help resolve the conflict.

I also take issue with McCaskill saying Talent doesn’t consider 300 billion dollars a lot of money because he describes it as “1 percent of the GDP.” I felt like it was an unwarranted political stab that takes advantage of the fact that most people don’t have any idea how much of money is “a lot of money” when we’re talking about the national budget. If you consider the sum money spent to fund a full-scale war, then no, it’s not “a lot” of money (although I do think increased taxes to help finance the war would not be out of line, though I’m no economist). If McCaskill believes what she is saying, then I’m not sure I want her representing me. If she is saying it simply to play politics, then I’m happy she’s demonstrating rational thought but worried that she’ll say whatever she thinks will get her elected. Speaking of which, she was quoted as saying “George Bush let people die on rooftops because they were poor and because they were black,” and she stands by what she said because she “was acknowledging what Americans believed at the time.” Wow. Just… wow. I think I would be more comfortable with her had she explained her statement by saying she wasn’t used to the Louisiana heat and it had made her delirious. To blame the shortcomings of an entire system on the President by accusing him of being a racist is just reckless and irresponsible. Like I said before, either she believes this or she’s willing to say things like this for the sake of politics. Either way, it still counts against her in my book.

One thing on which I do agree with Ms. McCaskill is her view on abortion. Talent takes the expected Republican position, but McCaskill took what I believe to be the more realistic approach: “I certainly believe that abortion should remain safe, legal and rare in the early term, but why don’t we concentrate on prevention? Why don’t we all—none of us want abortion, none of us support abortion. Let’s come together and work on preventing abortions in this country.” Finally! Someone who wants to address an issue based on resolving the root of the problem rather than legislate behavior! Unfortunately, she goes on to imply that the high cost of healthcare drives up abortion numbers, which leads right into her support of universal health care - something I cannot support for a country of obese smokers wielding Big Gulps. It’s a shame really. She knows what the problem is but completely drops the ball when it comes to a solution. As for Talent, he goes hard-right on this one which (I think) avoids a real solution altogether. Murder has been essentially forbidden by law since the birth of our nation - that hasn’t stopped it from happening.

Another topic of the debate was stem cell research. My own view on this is pretty clear. I’m fine with the federal government not giving funding to the research. It seems to me that the medical industry has plenty of cash to fund its own research. I do have a problem with a blanket ban on “human cloning.” In my mind, there is a very real difference between cloning a person a la Dolly the sheep and growing a dish of stem cells. The legislation should reflect this difference. On this debate, I have to side with McCaskill, though I wish she would acknowledge that controlling certain kinds of cloning (the stuff that’s still in the realm of science fiction) may be prudent in the future. This is admittedly a difficult topic to legislate given the fact that what’s being regulated has yet to become reality. I do award bonus points, however, to Talent for mentioning the work being done throughout the country right now that is investigating methods of producing stem cells without violating anyone’s “moral code.” Should such research bear fruit, it will hopefully become a method to bypass the conflict and allow the scientific progress to continue with everyone’s support.

Lastly, the two candidates were asked about the legacy of Presidents Clinton and Bush, as well as the upcoming presidential election hopefuls. When asked if she would like to see Hillary Clinton become president McCaskill replied, “I think any Democratic nominee is going to be better than this president.” News flash Ms. McCaskill, President Bush can’t run again in ‘08. Show a little independent thought and get off the “not Bush” bandwagon.

So, as you can see, I’m torn between the two candidates in the Missouri Senate race next month. I’d say I’ve got the same problem as most Americans: I see two candidates who primarily are sticking to party politics rather than reason and compromise. But, as the old saying goes, “you can tell how smart someone is by how much they agree with you.” It might just be that there are a lot of Missourians who think I’m an idiot. I just hope they’re willing to explain to me why I’m an idiot rather than beat me over the head with a Democratic or Republican lever.