24thState

Redistricting Missouri: A Curious Bargain

There has been plenty of gnashing of teeth surrounding the new state senate map insofar as Senator Lembke gets a much more democrat leaning district and Cunningham ends up the loser in high stakes musical chairs with no seat at all. But just to show the mapmakers have a sense of humor, they employed a cute tactic by where they put that seat.  To what end, remains to be told.

The judicial panel envisioned shifting the 7th (a seat I once held) into east/mid Missouri in an area running from Lincoln and western St. Charles Counties on the east out to Callaway in the west. Instead, this band of Nixon appointees deliberately moved the 7th to Kansas City while moving the 10th to Mid-Missouri. Why do that?

The clear result is that the people of Kansas City, residing in the new 7th, will get an immediate election they never expected. That was certainly a scheme designed to benefit some well-connected Democrat, perhaps a House member who is termed out this year. Kansas Citians  will also enjoy an extra Senator for two years barring Senator Jolee Justus who represents the 10th now making the exceedingly conscientious decision to move 200 miles eastward to follow her district. That means, that Kansas City will have an extra voice and the people of the new 10th will have no voice, except to the degree Senator Justus wants to moderate her views to please her constituents who will never have the chance to vote for her. But it gets better. Senator Justus, a attorney, is also a hard left, out of the closet lesbian.

This is not the first time this tactic of switching district numbers has been employed. Lembke's predecessor in the 1st, Harry Kennedy, from St. Louis City, spent two years representing the people in south central MO. I used to have fun ribbing him about making regular visits and 150 mile round trips to visit his "constituents". When you call or visit your Senator, you get what you get. At least Harry was Catholic, pro-life and essentially blue collar, so not totally repugnant to the people withwhom he otherwise had no connection. To assign a leftist lesbian lawyer to rural Mid-Missouri is to take the cute trick way too far and really strip 170,000 people of any serious representation. To be sure, Senator Justus is a super nice and generous person and she will help anyone who asks, but don't look to her to give any serious consideration to representing her temporary new constituency on the Senate Floor. That may be a basis for a lawsuit from the people of the 10th.

Meanwhile, Justus' defacto replacement in the Senate from the new 7th will give Kansas City and the political left an additional voice to assist Jolee's.

It is very interesting to me that this map was supported by three of the repub's, but not Executive Steve Ehlmann. He is an historian and the only one on the panel who has been a Senator. It is hard to not trust his wisdom as the lone republican dissenter against this map. The others are more traditional Party first types with solid records of loyalty to the Missouri Republican Party. One is actually the GOP accountant.

So what did the Party get in return for this bargain by removing Cunningham and possibly Lembke and adding a leftist seat in Kansas City? Let's do the simple math. Start with an overwhelmingly Republican Senate that is already "underwhelmingly" conservative.  Subtract two conservatives. Now add a Kansas City leftist democrat.  X - 2c + (1l) = X-3. This is a massive shift to the left in an already disappointing Senate. Could a leftist shift in the Senate have been the goal of the Missouri Republican Party? Did the Republicans go rogue or just prove incompetent? Could there have been a Party decision to remove Lembke and Cunningham for not towing the party line?

I think we need to hear from the conveners in "Independence Hall"

"Mr. Franklin, what have you given us?"

"We have given you a crappy map, if you can keep it".

Wake Up and Smell the Money Behind Your Vote Counts!

The following was submitted by Mindy Patterson of TheAllianceForTruth.com:

Wake Up and Smell the Money Behind Your Vote Counts!

Be careful what you wish for!  That’s my warning to the proponents of the "Your Vote Counts" ballot initiative currently gathering signatures for the Missouri 2012 November ballot.

It may seem like a great idea on the surface, but if the "Your Vote Counts" measure passes it will amend our Missouri constitution and require a three-fourths vote from both the House and Senate in our Missouri legislature to make changes or repeal ANY ballot initiative. A task that is virtually impossible. So what does that mean, you ask?  It means that ANY ballot initiative that is passed by the voters becomes LAW. There’s a name for that, and it’s called direct democracy.

Direct democracy is a failed model of government. Our Founding Fathers understood why direct democracy, or majority rule, results in anarchy which is the reason they created America’s representative republic form of government ruled by law (the Constitution) which  protects the rights of the individual against the actions of the majority. Direct democracy is a tyranny of the elite. Thomas Jefferson described it best when he said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”

The state of California now has direct democracy.  And it’s no secret in California that the ballot initiative process is has become a tool for the wealthy special interests. Voters are passing ballot initiatives that are unfunded mandates on the state, which have contributed greatly toward bankrupting the once great golden state.  In California, ANY ballot initiative that is passed by the voters becomes law, bypassing the legislature and forfeiting the checks and balances of floor debate, committee hearings, and deliberation by legislators who take an oath to uphold both the U.S. and state constitution.  

I dread to think what might happen to Missouri if Your Vote Counts were to pass. Ballot initiatives that could force such  issues into law concerning right to life, taxes, health care, utilities, environmental issues, private property, agriculture, food sources, gun rights, gun bans, -- just to name a few!  All it takes is for a ballot initiative to obtain financial backing of wealthy special interests who are able to control the media message and influence the voters to get their measure passed by a vote of the unknowing, media-influenced voter into law. Direct democracy in action. 

"Your Vote Counts" is largely funded by the wealthy animal rights group, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Here in Missouri and in seventeen other states, HSUS has exploited the ballot initiative process with their big money allowing them to saturate the voters with commercials and dominate the airwaves with their emotional message and propaganda to essentially buy their vote.

To date the "Your Vote Counts" campaign has raised $345,644.00 of which only 1.5% has come from MIssouri residents. We must not allow out-of-state big money, special interests to hijack Missouri’s form of government and buy our laws.

Our state sovereignty is not for sale!  Missouri, wake up and smell the money!

St. Louis Tea Party - 3rd Anniversary Tea Party

If you have not heard, St. Louis Tea Party is planning a 3rd Anniversary Tea Party (with an emphasis on training & preparing for the 2012 elections), for February 24 & 25.  The event will take place at Crowne Plaza Hotel in Clayton.  Here is some info on the event:

Friday, February 24

    Hors d'oeuvres & Speech from Dr. Larry Schweikart, author of A Patriot's History of the United States

Saturday, February 25

    Breakfast, Activist Training (Beginner to Expert), Lunch & Learn with local hero Bill Federer, More Activist Training, and a Mock Caucus (to prepare for MO's March 17 presidential caucuses

To purchase tickets, click here.

Akin and Earmarks in Perspective

I will lead this with the most unequivocal disclaimer I can offer. As I have written before, all three candidates for Senator, Akin, Steelman and Brunner have credentials that should exite any true conservative and any one could be a great Senator, certainly as opposed to the pretender, Claire McCaskill. She is the one who endorsed Obama early over Hillary Clinton. For this reason, coupled with my sense that despite my long friendship with Todd and his amazing family, setting my personal bias aside, I cannot see a path to victory for the U.S. Senate for the less well-funded of two male candidates from St. Louis in a statewide contest. Now, the issue today is whether it would be proper for anyone to criticize Todd for earmarking money for Hwy 141 and no defense here is going to change that.

The Missouri Journal editor, Brian Hook ran a piece today on an earmark report that cites a report implying that Akin somehow pushed for an earmark to improve a highway that would improve the value of his own land. While Brian Hook is infinitely fair, running the story implies that there IS a story, even when there is no story. Right?

There is confusion here that is understandable as is the confusion over earmarks. What is not understandable is any implication that Todd did anything morally or even ethically wrong. So anyone bailing on Todd for this or using this to attack Todd is the only one making an ethical breach.

I love to sum up Todd this way: During the height of the Clinton-Lewinski scandal, I had a moment of small talk with a handful of fellow Republican lawmakers about the moral hazard of young coeds running around the Capitol. These were the ladies who generally held down the left flank and the one who was in charge of the intern program had no reason to prop up Todd, yet she was explaining what she does with the particularly pretty College girls. While I was prepared for her to say she assigns them to women, I had to laugh when she said she assigns them to then State House member Akin. So impeccable was his reputation that he was to be trusted above all others to be honorable in a potentially charged scenario.

Now to earmarks: In my considered opinion, the debate about earmarks is typically very misfocused. There is a huge difference between a lawmaker who seeks funding to subsidize his brother's wind farm company, or to subsidize mohair or even for a bridge to nowhere, and a lawmaker who acts to fulfill a deep need for his constituents and re-directs a portion of road money from less important projects to important ones.

Highway 141 improvement was on the books for over 30 years. It predated my run for office and was an issue in my first campaign in 1993. It will still be an issue for years to come. It is being built now only because of persistent teamwork, meetings and 1000s of volunteer hours by hundreds of citizens and civic leaders culminating with my office asking Congressman Akin to get a federal highway bill earmark to study the engineering. He then sought more money until finally, the local highway funding decision-makers got the message and gave "141" the nod. That is what a responsible and resourceful Congressman should do.

Today, Akin is being scrutinized because the road he helped to widen meandered within miles of his family's homestead. This is a parcel that quite possibly was owned by the Akin family before 141 was even built. As progress spread, developers built million dollar plus McMansions all around the Akin homestead. Naturally, after decades of owning the land and the home and paying ever increasing property taxes, the Akin parcel became one of the most prime pieces of real estate in St. Louis County. Akin mentioned years before the 141 progress that the property tax bill alone was getting prohibitive such that the sad reality became that selling the homestead enjoyed by over three generations became the natural option. That property certainly peaked in value well before the Hwy 141 improvement.

Anyone exploiting this non-story to smear the good name of the Akin family does a disservice to the Akins and to civil discourse in general. Worse, such narratives risk perversely chilling future lawmakers into a sense that they most oppose progress if it falls within someone's definition of "too close". That will be a very sad day.

Santorum Hat Trick

It is hats off for Rick Santorum.  As the overwhelming cash advantage of Romney proved to be devastating in Florida making his and the "Establishment'" victory appear inevitable, the Gingrich and Santorum campaigns were waging pressure campaigns to determine who should bow out so that the conservative majority could have a shot at selecting a true choice and not an echo of the establishment.  Nod to Phyllis Schlaffly.  So Santorum saw an opening granted by an understandable but now unfortunate move by Gingrich that is a quintessential example of being penny wise and pound foolish.  How the famously cerebral Gingrich would like to take back that decision.  American Republicans now have one clear choice and it is Santorum.

Dismissing last night's primary vote as a "beauty contest" Newt decided not to pay the nominal expense of being on the ballot.  This gave Santorum the shot he has craved, to be head to head with Romney, manno y manno with no other conservative to siphon votes.  Ron Paul is a lot of things, but he is not a traditional conservative.

When the votes were counted, Santorum not only won Missouri handily, clobbbering Romney over 2:1 (55% to 25%) he also defeated Romney in Colorado and Minnesota in contests with Gingrich still on the ballot.

The race is set.  If Gingrich is truly concerned for the desires of Republican's nationwide, he will quit now and allow the true conservative majority to have a choice.

Who Will Control You?

The Blaze ran a story entitled "Is This Iowa High School Teaching Students Communism Is Better Than Capitalism? See the Flyer".  The article posts a picture that is clearly propaganda for communism but the school principal defends that they were using it as an example of propaganda and that the whole lesson plan is objective.  This is a fair point, but wrong.  The school, the teacher, the principal, all are unequipped by the sorry state of civics education to even know leftist propaganda when they see it. 

The most offensive part of the lesson is not the picture, it is this conclusion:

Moreover, communism stands for a class less society, which doesn’t see any difference between the rich and the poor.  On the other hand, capitalism divides the society into rich and poor.  Capitalism can be said to be the exploitation of the individual.  While every one is equal in communism, there is a great divide of the class in capitalism.

Ignoring the poor grammar, that paragraph is so loaded with propaganda nuance that there is no room to cover it here.  For now, simply consider the juxtaposition of the phrase "capitalism divides" which is a negative assertion couched as an objective observation that is followed by a statement about communism "While every one is equal in communism" which is a not only another assertion, but a positive assertion that also is objectively false.  Communism has never made everyone equal.  Setting aside 35 million people slaughtered (How is that equality working out for you?) consider the divide between Putin a career "civil servant" who is a bilionaire and the serfs in his country.  So the answer to the question the Blaze asks is unequivocally "Yes"  the school is teaching communism.  Sadly, it does not appear they even know it, otherwise why bother launching a forceful defense on the website that proves oneself wrong.

Similarly, the President touched off a firestorm at the National Prayer Breakfast when he said among other things:

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

While many speculated about what this says about his spirituality or lack thereof, and others criticized him for politicizing the event, he misses the outrageous nature of the belief system underlying his words.

Then there was this comment on 24th State regarding proposed Right to Work laws in Missouri:

I have been reading as much as I can about right to work, from what I have read so far it seems the cost of living doesn't decrease, however ones pay does. So then who are the winners?

This confused reader is looking at outcomes and asking cost benefit questions.  The right to work issue asks one simple question:  "Should workers or the union control your livelihood?" 

Certainly there are profound economic repercussions when states like Indiana choose the right to work.  Those statistics have been manipulated for seventy years by both sides.  This debate angle spreads confusion and masques that deeper and most basic question at the heart of the issue.

At the heart of every one of these controversies is the question: "Who will control you?".  The Iowa public school states that "capitalism divides" as if it the words have physical control.  Capitalism does nothing!  Divisions are certainly observable in any economic system but that is not the purpose any more than the fathers of communism, Marx and Hegel had economic division and the murder of 100 million innocents world wide as a goal of communism.  Communist propaganda holds that equality is the goal while glossing over these embarrasing details.  Communists know they must lie because fully informed free people will not willingly cede that kind of control.  So when communinsts reign, they subtly strip control from people and shift it to government using all kinds of tactics including forced unionism which is a central strategy.  The union promising to help the worker, taxes his paycheck to fund a bureaucracy and funnel vast sums of cash to elect leftists.  The one who wants to control you always promises he wants to help you.  One day you wake up and wonder why you are a slave.

Obama, himself steeped in communist propaganda under the tuteledge of Frank Marshall Davis, David Axelrod and many other notable Communists promises "hope and change" and cannot understand why church leaders do not share his vision that words “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required" are moral imperatives on individuals not government mandates.  For the state to extract payment from one person by force to deliver charity to another, tramples morality by weakening both the desire and the ability of the individual financially to do what his heart might lead him to do in order to honor God.  He wonders "Why should I help the poor when that is the government's job?"

All across this great land, state lawmakers hear grievances from people with problems like not enough jobs, insurance companies not providing coverages they want, or professional organizations wanting new licensure laws.  Few petitioners see that at the heart of these demands is almost always the willingness to relinquish control to the government.  We have lost the notion that government is not the only regulator.  Free market economies are not only excellent regulators of bad corporate behavior they are actually free in terms of cost and, more importantly, control. So the astute lawmaker asks the petitioner, "So you want me to shift a little more of your control to the government?"

Our Founding Fathers' vision was captured brilliantly by Ben Franklin who famously stated "We have given you a Republic if you can keep it".  They gave maximum liberty balanced with maximum personal responsibility.  They did this by shackling government; "Congress shall make no law..." and creating powerful checks and balances all so that individuals would hold maximum power wihout suffering the pitfalls of zero government and anarchy.  They understood the absolute control of tyranical government so they gave each of us individual control over our lives.  So before we wake up enslaved we need to examine every candidate and every policy position and remember to ask, "Who will control you?"

The Right to Work: Hope in Missouri

Yesterday, Gubernatorial candidate Bill Randles put out a bold statement on theneed for a right to work law in Missouri.  It seems his opponent in the GOP primary, Dave Spence, is also a supporter of all Missourians having the right to work without being forced into a union.  Good for Spence!

From the AP, delivered by NBC Action News:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - St. Louis businessman Dave Spence says he is entering the Republican race for Missouri governor. (sic)

Spence is the president and CEO of Alpha Packaging, which makes plastic bottles, and also chairman of Legacy Packaging.

He says job creation will be the number one theme of his campaign. Spence says he wants to reduce government interference in businesses and make Missouri a "right-to-work" state in which union fees cannot be a condition of employment.

Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/political/st-louis-businessman-dave-spence-to-run-for-missouri-governor#ixzz1lNEPkqM

Sadly, these positons stand in stark contrast to the deafening silence and outright hostility and toal inaction on the right to work issue that we have come to expect from too many current Republican office holders.

Right to Work is the Right to Prosper

Guest Contributor, Bill Randles

The state of Missouri has a fundamental economic choice to make.  Will we pursue a proven path to prosperity or continue to sacrifice the economic good of all to pander to a small special interest group?  If Missouri does not become a right to work state its economic decline will continue.

There are two types of states in terms of labor laws.  Missouri is one of 27 states that is a “closed shop” state.  That means if you wish to work in a business that is already unionized, you must join the union to get a job.  You must also, therefore, consent to a mandatory deduction from your check to be used for essentially whatever purposes (including political) the union chooses.  In the 23 right to work states, it remains up to the individual worker whether to join a union and whether to have his wages docked by the union.

The long-standing decline of union membership in the US is being vigorously resisted by union leadership and their pet politicians.  Union membership has dwindled in the private sector to about 6.9% of workers.  In the public sector, the number is about 36%.  Obviously, the market has spoken and whatever purposes unions may have served in the past, the private sector has largely moved on. However, as evident by the large number of public sector unions, politicians who pay court to union leadership remain determined to prop up unions.  The cost to the rest of us is substantial.  Missouri and the other closed shop states continue to lose jobs and economic development to the other right to work states.  In fact, since this “recovery” began only the then 22 right to work states have added net jobs.  Additionally, during the last census, only the then 22 right to work states added congressional representation as well.  Thus we have a clear contrast between a broken model and a successful model.  Recently, Indiana recognized this model of success and has become the 23^rd right to work state.  Yet Missouri stubbornly clings to the broken model.  Why? (see our earlier post on Indiana)

It is because Jay Nixon and the Democratic Party have been bought and paid for by the labor unions.  Labor unions along with trial lawyers are the largest contributors to Nixon’s political campaigns and they’ve gotten good value for what they’ve paid for.  He stubbornly refuses to even consider right to work legislation and works hard to peel off enough Republican legislators to prevent the legislation from even coming to his desk.  The fact that it costs Missouri jobs, raises the price of every single item sold in this state, and will dramatically inflate the costs of projects in the future like rebuilding Joplin does not trouble Nixon and the Democrats one bit.  On the contrary, loss of jobs and a hidden union tax on every transaction in the state of Missouri is a price they are happily willing to pay to continue to pay off their devoted union backers. 

So the choice Missourians need to make is quite clear.  Will we choose economic prosperity for all or a stunted economy that panders to a few?  Will we have a free, open, and vibrant economy or continue closed tightly regulated, crony capitalism?  When I am elected governor I will promptly push through a right to work statute which will benefit all Missourians.  Missouri does not have to live with the mediocrity that we have endured in our economy and political system over the last several years.  The people of this state do not have to be held hostage by special interests and their captive politicians any longer.  Missouri must become a right to work state and in 2013, in the first legislative session after I’m elected governor, it will.  

Missouri is in last place and in dire need of OFFENSE against Nixon.  He obviously does not know how to make a state survive, let alone thrive.

Indiana Enacts Right to Work; Why can't Missouri?

Congratulations to Indiana for doing something that seems beyond the Show Me State: pass right to work legislation:

Indiana officially became the 23rd state in the nation to enact a right to work law that allows employees working in union shops to opt out of joining and paying dues to the union. Gov. Mitch Daniels signed HB 1001 into law this afternoon after the Senate passed the legislation by a 28-22 vote.

Gov. Mitch Daniels issued a statement about the bill after signing it Wednesday. That statement reads in part:

Indiana will improve still further its recently earned reputation as one of America’s best places to do business, and we will see more jobs and opportunity for our young people and for all those looking for a better life.

As was noted at Advance Indiana, 23 states have adopted right to work legislation. Wouldn't it be apropos if Missouri, the 24th state to join the union, could be the 24th state to adopt a right to work bill?

The first step on that path is in Missouri's General Assembly. The Missouri Senate has taken action on right to work, but the Missouri House has let the legislation flounder. Speaker Steven Tilley needs to prioritize this reform.

There is a risk that Democrat Gov. Jay Nixon will veto right to work. In an election year, it is the job of a conservative legislature to force a liberal Governor like Nixon to take a stand on this crucial issue.

 

 

The China Hub is back

Repackaged as the “Freight Forwarders Incentive Act,” HB 1476 is the reincarnation of the failed China Hub bill that cost the 24th State hundreds of thousands of dollars in a protracted and futile special session last year.

This year's “Freight Forwarders Incentive Act” is the portion of the Aerotropolis Bill SB 8 that gave $60M in tax credits to exporters who send goods out through Lambert Airport to an international destination, presumably to China. HB 1476 - heard in the Economic Development Committee today - gives the same $60M to State approved Freight Forwarders.

The questions about the China Hub bill still remain unanswered with the Freight Forwarders Incentive Act.

• Why is the rest of the state excluded from these incentives by the requirement that only freight leaving Lambert Airport is eligible for the Tax Credits?
• Why are only international freight forwarders favored by the state with these Tax Credits?  Why not include domestic freight forwarders?
•  Why are these Tax Credits transferable – allowing, in effect, cash payments to businesses that receive them and allowing businesses that do not engage in international exports to lower their tax rates?
• What is the increased tax burden to the rest of the businesses in the state?  Those that don’t receive this special break, but have to make up the difference of lost state revenue?
• Most perplexing of all, why does the Republican majority that claims to support capitalism continue to promote the same mercantilist (crony-capitalist) polices that King George used to oppress our founding fathers?

It will be interesting to see if the new label will make this bill any more palatable to the tax payers of our state who aren’t on the receiving end of this governmental largess.