24thState

The Day The Republic Died

On March 8, 2011 a bill was brought up by John Boehner for a vote in the House of Representatives.  This was one of the early bills brought to a vote by the new Republican House Speaker.  The bill, if eventually passed into law, would have expanded Obama Care.  Red State reported it, the mainstream media, including FOX News, did not.

This day in 2011 was the day our republic died.  The significance of this bill was that it exposed a willingness on the part of John Boehner and the House establishment REPUBLICANS to actually vote to EXPAND the very program they were elected by the American people a mere 4 months earlier to "repeal, replace, or defund".

Two essential questions need to be asked regarding this vote:

 1) Why in the world did John Boehner even bring this bill to a vote?  (Was this a payback for a previous political deal?)

 2) How did our respective Republican representatives vote?

95 establishment REPUBLICANS supported this bill as it eventually passed in the House.  Sadly for those of us in Missouri, the Congressional Record shows that with the exception of Billy Long the entire Missouri Republican delegation voted FOR the bill.  Among those casting a "yea" vote from Missouri was now establishment Senate candidate Todd Akin.

This vote was a canary in a coal mine.  It should have served as an early indication to the American people that the Republican House we had just ushered in to power in 2010 had neither the political will nor the courage to stand on principle and fight to do whatever it took to stop Obama Care in its tracks.  This lack of political will was later demonstrated throughout 2011 when this same Republican House cut deals with the Democrats to pass a series of CRs which raised the debt while funding the government through FY12.  These 2011 CR deals funded early Obama Care programs, Planned Parenthood, the EPA, and a list of agencies and departments as long as Todd Akin's arm that all Republicans will be campaigning against between now and November 6.  Pledges and promises from any Republican who voted for the Obama Care expansion bill or any of the ensuing CRs (For the record - the CR votes implicate Missouri’s Billy Long as well) should be taken with a grain of salt in light of their voting record in 2011. House establishment Republicans extended a funding life-line to Obama Care throughout 2011 to get us to the point of relying on the opinion of a single Supreme Court Justice. So here we are, getting what we deserve because we allowed the Republicans we elected in 2010 to allow it to happen.

Contrary to the opinion of some, John Roberts did not kill our constitutional republic with his ruling on June 28 2012. It had been dead for over a year at that point, at least since March 8 2011 if not before then. We just didn't realize it. We had put our trust in the newly elected Republican House of Representatives then essentially ignored their exploits throughout 2011 merely because of the (R) next to their name. Although I do not agree in any way with Roberts’ ruling, we got what we deserved for putting all our faith in the Republican establishment in November of 2010 then failing to hold them to their words on Obama Care during 2011. Instead of insisting that the House use the power of the purse 1n 2011 to grind the government to a halt in order to force the Dems to come to the table to negotiate on Obama Care, conservatives whistled past the graveyard as the establishment Republicans cut deals with the Democrat devils to fund Obama Care and increase the debt in order to avoid the political blow-back of "shutting down the government" in support the goal of electing more Republicans in 2012, all the while hoping the courts would bail us out of the Obama Care mess. 

Result: It's 2012. Obama Care is now enshrined as the law of the land. The establishment House Republicans who played us for fools and voted to keep the Obama Care ball in the air by funding it in 2011 are running for re-election on the issue of repealing the very Obama Care legislation in 2012 that they shamelessly voted to FUND, and even EXPAND, throughout 2011. Are we awake yet, or is the Republic truly dead?

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.