The Important Moment - Pooh on Obama

"What do you like doing best in the world, Pooh?"

"Well," said Pooh, "what I like best -- " and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.

It's morning in America, and, as inspirational as that sounds, Americans are not morning people. It's morning in America, and we're a little grumpy, we're shaking off sleep, and the dream world we had an hour ago is hard to even recall. Soon, we have to report to work.

Did Tuesday night change everything? Did it change nothing? Did it change some things? I will let more eloquent bloggers wrestle with that one.

What I know in my heart is that Obama and America have given me that important moment of which Pooh speaks. I sat in my living room jammed with friends and I was shot through with hope and gratitude and joy. It was better than having the presidency - it was the moment of knowing that America was about to put a smart, competent, up-from-welfare black man into its highest office.

Yes, of course, I know that sooner than I care to admit I will be grousing on this soap box about some ghastly mistake or decision that President Obama has made. Of course, I know that milk and honey will not flow, and money will not grow on trees. My average day for the next four years will not be markedly different than my average day for the past eight.

But I'll carry the moment for the rest of my life, and it will sustain me in moments of dark cynicism and political hopelessness. It, together with Election Night '92, when I stood in the middle of the street with a neighbor toasting a new President from Hope, Arkansas, will remind me that joyful anticipation is not crushed by grim reality - reality is made to sparkle by transcendent moments.

If you didn't feel it on Tuesday night, I'm certain we who did seem silly to you in the cold light of the morning. Perhaps, though, you've felt it at other times. I don't know what makes the blood of a Republican race, but I hope it has - perhaps when Dick Cheney shot a lawyer in the face, perhaps when Colin Powell pranked the UN, or some other moment that made you proud to be a Republican.

Having had the moment of joy, though, we're strengthened and energized for the struggles and failures ahead. Yes, if you look at how Missouri voted, I agree that we should consider changing our name to Northern Mississippi, or Alabama Without The Gulf Coast.

It's morning in America, but Tuesday was one helluva night.

Star "Analysis" Factually Mistaken Again

The Star continues to let its readers down. A little while ago, they made a vital factual error in their endorsement of the storm water amendment, and then failed to correct it after I pointed it out. (While it's certainly possible that the error was simply a mistake caused by their inability to read a somewhat complex piece of legislation, it's strange that their error diminished the main reason to vote against the amendment, and it's also strange that they failed to correct it.)

Today's flawed analysis has a less direct impact on public policy, but it's still annoying to see Dave Helling publish sloppy research and factual misstatements under the guise of "analysis". Helling makes the fascinating and somewhat deflating point that "For all the talk about enthusiastic voters and long lines at the polls, it appears almost certain turnout for the 2008 election will fall short of the turnout four years ago, when George W. Bush beat John Kerry."

Great point, Dave, but it would be even better if it weren't flat-out wrong!

Dr. Michael McDonald, of George Mason University, has been studying election turnout, and reports that the percentage turnout may be the greatest since 1908. While some experts disagree and claim that the percentage will "only" be the greatest in 40 years, informed people agree that a record number of votes has been case cast (thanks, Pitch!), far exceeding 2004.

Quick, somebody explain to me why we should assign more credibility to "journalists" like Helling than bloggers like Tony?

How to Vote Today (in order)

President: Barack Obama. Our best hope to become a positive, progressive country.

Governor: Jay Nixon. Solid competence in the Governor's Mansion.

Lieutenant Governor: Sam Page. He is freakishly well qualified for the position.

Secretary of State: Robin Carnahan. Not just the best political name in the state, she has also shown herself to be a great Secretary of State.

Treasurer: Clint Zweifel. Nerdiness is a virtue in a treasurer.

Attorney General: Chris Koster. Not because he is a Democrat, but because he will be a better Attorney General.

U.S. Representative: Emanuel Cleaver. His influence will be even greater as the Democrats expand their control in the House of Representatives.

State Representative: Jason Kander. Unopposed, which is kind of unfortunate to those of us who enjoyed watching his innovative, hard-working and clean campaign astound everyone with a huge margin of victory against two fine opponents. What would he have done against a Republican?

Prosecuting Attorney: Jim Kanatzar. Unopposed - he is doing a great job.

Sheriff: Mike Sharp. The general election has been as low-key as the primary was heated. Mike will do a competent job and seek advice from good people.

Judicial Ballot. Retain each of them. They really are good judges, focused on applying law to facts and not getting caught up in party politics. They are a demonstration of the strength and virtues of the Missouri Plan. (By the way, as a Democrat, it could be argued that I should be urging that you vote against the judges who happen to be Republican, on the theory that a Democratic governor could appoint judges more to my liking as replacements. But those of us who support the Missouri Plan want good judges, not political cronies - not even our political cronies.)

Constitutional Amendment #1: No. This "English-only" proposal is not only unnecessary, un-American and hateful, it puts all of us in danger.

Constitutional Amendment #4: No. This technical amendment is the subject of a stealth campaign run by the wealthy interests seeking $20 million of our tax dollars. The KC Star has resorted to blatantly lying about what the Amendment even says. If you ever need an example of Missouri political corruption, this sneaky theft will serve.

Proposition A: No. The casino interests have lied to us from the moment they set their view on siphoning the money of Missourians to gaming corporations. They agreed to loss limits, and they are making plenty of money with them. Their cynical use of schools to cover their immoral behavior is despicable.

Proposition B: Yes. Improved home health care and improved working conditions for the people who deliver it. Only a knucklehead or someone who is making money off the status quo could vote against it.

Proposition C: Yes. Let's get Missouri out in front of the renewable energy industrial revolution. A tiny investment that could pay huge dividends.

Light Rail: No. I sympathize with those who think we need to do something, but this is the wrong thing to do. We cannot afford to blow a billion bucks on a starter line that will take too few people too few places, without any plan to make it into a robust rail system.

Voting Turn-out HUGE!

My wife just called - at 6:02, the line was around the corner, almost to Rockhill Road at the St. Peter's Legacy Center. In my 20 years of voting in this precinct, I've never seen a line out the door.

(Yes, she'll wait.)

Final Looking Down Ballot - Robin Carnahan for Secretary of State

This one is easy. The Republican candidate wants to impose restrictions on voting that will disenfranchise thousands of the poor and elderly. Robin Carnahan supports Missouri voters, and supports early voting.

The fact that Robin Carnahan has demonstrated competence in her job for the past 4 years is even more reason to vote for her. Her common-sense use of the internet for businesses to get licenses and to enhance state records access has saved money and opened up our government.

Not only will Robin Carnahan be a great Secretary of State, she already is one. Stick with a winner.

Looking Down Ballot: Chris Koster for Attorney General

I don't hide my disappointment that Chris Koster won the primary, and I believe that his tactic of recruiting Molly Korth Williams to jump into the race was contemptible. I even toyed with the idea of endorsing Mike Gibbons to register my displeasure.

But, despite it all, Chris Koster is the best candidate for the office. For me, the issue that illustrates why we need Chris Koster is the Missouri Plan, about which I've written frequently. Gibbons wants to make changes to it, and Koster recognizes that it is working effectively, and should not be tampered with. I understand how an uninformed non-lawyer may be duped into thinking that we need to change the Missouri Plan, but not someone who is seeking to lead Missouri's law firm.

There are other reasons to oppose Mike Gibbons, such as his eagerness to shut down the investigation into Matt Blunt's emails, but, really, if he can't even get the Missouri Plan right, the choice is clear.

Vote for Chris Koster for the good of Missouri, even if it kind of makes you feel dirty.

Looking Down Ballot: Clint Zweifel for Treasurer

Clint Zweifel is exactly the kind of guy you want in the Treasurer's office. Careful, diligent - perhaps not the most exciting guy in the room, but very much the kind of guy you would trust to faithfully execute tasks with utmost competence.

Brad Lager has shown himself to be an undisciplined political opportunist.

Vote for Clint Zweifel.

Biblical Mystery

The week before this one, the First Reading at Mass began with:

Thus says the LORD:
"You shall not molest or oppress an alien,
for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.

That should answer any questions that Fundamentalists may have regarding how to vote on Missouri Amendment #1. Straight from Exodus 22.

Voter Turnout Looking Good in Kansas City

I dropped by the absentee voter office yesterday afternoon, and it was packed! A line snaked out the door, and people were shoulder-to-shoulder at the counter. One of the people in line had come from another location where they told him that the wait would be two hours.

Two women who came in were told they needed to go to Independence to vote. They didn't grumble or look discouraged - they got directions and headed out to Independence.

I am officially optimistic. There was excitement in the air.

Peter Kinder Loses Temper, Compares Dr. Sam Page to Hitler and Goebbels

I wrote yesterday about how well-qualified Sam Page is for the position of Lieutenant Governor. I didn't focus much on Kinder, the incumbent, other than to point out even he that doesn't realize the scope of the job, because I wanted to stay positive on one of the best and nicest candidates I have met in my years of political involvement.

In the video below, Peter Kinder shows his anger about getting caught rewarding a $40,000 campaign donor with a $1,000,000 tax credit, and compares Dr. Sam Page to Hitler and Goebbels - it's at about 2:15.

Peter Kinder, please get control of yourself.

Looking Down Ballot: Question - Light Rail

The last item on next Tuesday's ballot will be the Light Rail question. I've struggled with this one, caught between the hopeful image of clean rail cars swiftly delivering workers around the city, and the staggering reality of spending a billion dollars for an abbreviated gimmick. As much as I want to embrace the change, I cannot get on board for the light rail extravaganza, and I will be voting against it.

I reach that conclusion regretfully and respectfully. I think the vast majority of the supporters of Light Rail are forward-thinking and well-intentioned. I simply think they are not paying enough attention to the reality of the proposal. In my opinion, the light rail proposal costs too much, accomplishes too little, disproportionately burdens the poor, weakens our city's ability to address the future, and contains way too many unresolved questions.

Costs too much. Even the proponents of this measure acknowledge that we're looking at spending a billion dollars on the starter line. That's over $2,200 dollars for every man, woman and child in Kansas City. Now, I'm perfectly willing to blow big taxpayer dollars for the right project, but not for a train that doesn't even get me to the airport. And, after we install it, we have to pay operating subsidies every year to keep it running. In the face of an economic slowdown and a tightening of credit, can Kansas City truly afford to saddle itself with another expense that keeps on charging?

Accomplishes too little. This line won't get anyone to the airport. This line won't get anyone out to South Johnson County. You won't be able to ride it to the stadiums. It won't serve the West Side, or the Northeast. It will probably skip Westport, and it will definitely skip The Legends. It's only a starter line - a truncated version of what we all wish we could have.

While my optimistic friends claim that we have to start somewhere, the truth is that this "start" will have us paying 3/8 of a percent in sales tax for 25 years. Does anybody believe that we will be able to afford to toss in another, probably higher, tax to run it up to the airport in a few years? And then another to run it to the stadiums? No magic genie is going to make our starter line grow into a robust rail system. Instead, we will blow all our money on a starter line that will remain a starter line for at least a quarter century.

Disproportionately burdens the poor. Sales taxes are regressive - those who spend everything they own on goods to survive bear a disproportionate measure of the tax burden. Sales taxes in a city surrounded by other shopping venues are even more regressive. Ironically, those of us blessed with personal transportation will be able to cruise over to a locale with a reduced sales tax rate while those dependent on the rails will be stuck with high taxes.

Weakens our city's ability to address the future. The billion dollars we are talking about spending on this starter line is money that will not be around to meet future wants, or even our current needs. We have a host of infrastructure needs that aren't as pretty or exciting as a rail car, but they must to be met. If we go "all in" for light rail, we will be taxing ourselves to the hilt and we will not be able to go back and tax ourselves to address our delapidated sewer system, or upgrade our buses, or build a downtown stadium, or any of the dozens of desires and must-haves that we will develop in the coming years. We're kind of like the kid swearing to his parents that if he can just have this bike, he will never, ever ask for anything else again. Smart parents know better.

Too many unresolved questions. What route will the plan take through downtown? Cordish wants the route adjusted away from Grand even though that is the most logical route available, and nobody will tell Kansas City voters what route we will use. (A cynic might be justified in concluding that the planners simply don't want to announce Cordish's victory until after voters are fully on the hook.) Similarly, we don't know what the ridership projections are - yet we're supposed to tax ourselves without knowing them. Even more shockingly, we don't know how much, if any, the federal government will toss into this project. The economic feasibility of the project hinges on the feds coming up with almost half of the money, but there's no promise that we'll get anything remotely like that amount. But, regardless, the tax will start being imposed right away.

A light rail system would be a nice thing to have, and I want one. I don't dispute that it would help some workers get to some jobs, and it would have some economic development benefits along the line. Light rail is a great idea. But so are a lot of things that we cannot afford. We cannot afford to blow a billion bucks on a starter line that will take too few people too few places.

Writing in Candidates - Not as Easy as You Might Think

The Write-In Ballot is the fantastical "out" for independent voters everywhere. Don't like the candidates listed for a given position? Go ahead and write in your own name or your best friend's or Kanye West. You might not win, but at least you will have lodged a vote for the best candidate for the office, while striking a blow for independence. In the back of your mind, you may even indulge the fantasy of puzzled pundits reacting to a tide of votes for an unknown name. Can't you picture Wolf Blitzer on election night announcing, "In an unexpected development, it appears that Tony Botello has emerged as the leading vote-getter for Missouri Governor. Stand by for Jay Nixon's stunned concession speech . . ."?

Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy.

Write-in ballots only count in Missouri if the named person has filed with the Secretary of State's office prior to 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday immediately preceding the election day. Votes for write-in candidates who haven't jumped through the hoops don't even get counted.

So, sadly, writing "Martin Sheen" in for president won't get us President Bartlett.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition C - Renewable Energy

Proposition C is not only a forward-thinking, inexpensive step in the right direction for Missouri, it is also a wonderful Rorschach ink blot test to uncover fundamental attitudes about the intersection of Government and the Free Market. Absolutists see Proposition C as a scary monster out to devour the Free Market, while realists see it as something positive and helpful.

Here is the language of the measure (and, while I'm at it, here is the link to the Kansas City sample ballot):

Shall Missouri law be amended to require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower with the renewable energy sources equaling at least 2% of retail sales by 2011 increasing incrementally to at least 15% by 2021, including at least 2% from solar energy; and restricting to no more than 1% any rate increase to consumers for this renewable energy?

The estimated direct cost to state governmental entities is $395,183. It is estimated there are no direct costs or savings to local governmental entities. However, indirect costs may be incurred by state and local governmental entities if the proposal results in increased electricity retail rates.

The question that voters ought to be pondering is whether we are "in" or "out" on breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. I believe now is the time to move forward and seize for Missouri some of the economic, ecological and societal benefits of renewable energy.

The arguments against helping Missouri take a leadership position in the new economy is that it represents an expensive and unjustified intrusion on the Free Market. If alternative energy is a viable option, they argue, the market will recognize and exploit that fact, and utility companies will move toward renewable energy on their own.

Those arguments, based on the fundamental immorality of Libertarianism, ignore the reality of the marketplace in the 21st Century. While it is nice to sit back and dream of the day when enlightened utility companies will embrace new technology, there are two main reasons they never will, and why we need Proposition C to help our state economy.

First, the marketplace is fundamentally conservative, and requires encouragement to adjust its approach on energy. The utility industry is simply not a nimble industry, and never will become one without encouragement. Billions of dollars in "sunk costs" have bound the industry to centralized production and fossil fuels. If I owned a fantastically expensive power plant that burned coal, I, too, would resent a movement toward wind energy, which could reduce the relative advantage I have in the marketplace for electricity. Just as wise saddlemakers and livery stables opposed governmental involvement in paving roads for those unproven cars, utility owners are fighting a rearguard battle against a shift toward renewable energies. Their self-interest does not reflect what is best for Missouri.

Second, Missourians are justified in this enhancement of the free market because the utility industry has so many hidden societal costs. In ways we never really stop to consider, we have been subsidizing fossil-based utilities since their birth. When a coal plant emits "acceptable levels" of pollution, Missourians are subsidizing the profits of the owner by absorbing that pollution. Similarly, when the Missouri National Guard sends troops to Iraq, we are subsidizing our dependence on fossil fuels. (I won't argue whether the Iraq War is a war for oil, but I will insist that our involvement in the Middle East is largely motivated by the region's petroleum.) On the positive side, we demand that our utilities provide us with energy, even after an ice storm, when it might be more economically efficient to wait until spring to repair the lines. The "free market" is a myth in the heavily-regulated and high-social-cost realm of power generation.

Proposition C represents an opportunity for Missouri, and one we should support enthusiastically. In demanding a move toward renewable energy, Missourians will be getting out in front of and supporting the next wave of industrial change. We will be helping the market work for us instead of against us by encouraging innovation and new thinking. If the beneficent boards of our utility companies really had Missouri's interest at heart instead of their own, we would have moved this way generations ago. They, of course, do not have our best interest at heart, so this Proposition C will serve to make our voices heard.

Vote for Proposition C so that Missouri can be at the front of the next industrial revolution.

Stop Talking About Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal

Some of my fellow liberal bloggers have seized upon the documented fact that a huge American flag was dragged across the ground by the McCain campaign. They have even provided this video of the atrocity, which ought to make "real" Americans angry, especially here in Missouri, because Missouri is where they chose to demonstrate their disregard and disdain for America.
It bothers me to even post the video.

Despite my strong patriotism, I am calling on my fellow liberal bloggers to cease discussion of the Republican flag-desecration scandal. While it provides a vivid example of how the Republicans have a penchant for false patriotism, and how little respect they really have for patriotism after it has served their self-interest, I think that we should be better than that.

We should remember that not all Republicans are flag-tramplers. In fact, even in this case, we have no evidence that John McCain personally approved of the flag-dragging. I doubt that he personally approved or ordered the flag-desecration, because he has been terribly busy planning attacks on Obama's patriotism, and on the patriotism of those who support him. When Governor Palin claimed that "real Americans" are supporting her ticket, and "anti-Americans" are supporting Obama, I'm willing to bet that she was not even thinking about her next opportunity to drag the American flag across the ground.

Some might point out that the McCain campaign deserves to be criticized for this Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal, because they attempted to create and exploit a false flag desecration scandal earlier in the campaign in an attempt to damage Obama. To that I say, let bygones be bygones, and let's just ignore the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri!!

Why do I think we should ignore the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri? Because this campaign ought to be about the issues, not about the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri. Personally, I would rather talk about Health Care Policy and Foreign Policy and the Economy than the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri.

We also must remember that after November 4, we will need to work with the Republicans across the aisle, whether they were part of the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri, or not. So, please, fellow liberal bloggers, let's stop talking about the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri.

Okay? I don't want to see this video ever again.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition B - Better Home Health Care For Missourians

Proposition B, on first glance, looks like a good idea. But when you take a more careful, analytical look at it, you realize that it's a great idea.

Here is the language that will appear on your ballot in less than two weeks:

Shall Missouri law be amended to enable the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in their homes by creating the Missouri Quality Homecare Council to ensure the availability of quality home care services under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce?

The exact cost of the proposal to state governmental entities is unknown, but is estimated to exceed $510,560 annually. Additional costs for training are possible. Matching federal funds, if available, could reduce state costs. It is estimated there would be no costs or savings to local governmental entities.

While I often get accused of being verbose, even I see no need to expound on the merits of helping people live independently in their homes.

When I see a measure so obviously correct, I can't help but wonder if anybody is opposing it, and, if so, why? Thank Goodness I read Big Muddy Politics regularly, because that blog managed to find and destroy the anti-Proposition B argument. In a nutshell, the best that the Missouri Chamber of Commerce can come up with is the fear that the home health care workers might - gasp! - unionize, and that better home health care for Missourians could, possibly, cost a little more than bad home health care.

Believe me, I understand the differences of opinion concerning some unions, and a good-faith (but deeply flawed) argument could be made that some unions have created conditions that have led to off-shoring of manufacturing jobs, I am at a loss to explain why it would be a horrible thing to have a home health care work force that is well-trained and decently paid. Only a pathologically knee-jerk anti-worker reactionary could oppose increasing the qualifications, training and wages of one of the few groups of Missouri workers whose jobs are immune from being exported! (Though, to be fair, the Missouri Chamber's fantasy world probably would include herding retired blue-collar workers onto cargo ships to be exported to third-world countries if the lowered cost of care would reduce corporate pension obligations.) Incidentally, those same well-qualified, well-trained and decently paid home health care workers are the very same people who will be taking care of our grandparents, parents and even ourselves when we want to stay in our homes.

Vote "Yes" on Proposition B. It sounds like a good idea because it is a good idea.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition A - No Loss Protection or Competition for Casinos

Vote No on Proposition A.

Kenny Hulshof and Jay Nixon agree that they do not want Proposition A to be law when one of them becomes Governor.

Proposition A is not about shiny apples and schools, no matter what its proponents try to portray. It is about money - huge amounts of money siphoned out of Missouri and into the pockets of out-of-state gambling interests. But jet-setting casino owners are a singularly unattractive lot, so they have dirtied our schools and children by drafting them into the battle as human shields for corporate greed.

Here is the language that will show up on your ballot two weeks from today:

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling;

prohibit any future loss limits;

require identification to enter the gambling area only if necessary to establish that an individual is at least 21 years old;

restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built;

increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%;

create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund”; and

require annual audits of this new fund?

State governmental entities will receive an estimated $105.1 to $130.0 million annually for elementary and secondary education, and $5.0 to $7.0 million annually for higher education, early childhood development, veterans, and other programs. Local governmental entities receiving gambling boat tax and fee revenues will receive an
estimated $18.1 to $19.0 million annually.

In a nutshell, this provision would give existing casinos a license to sucker people to go "all in", protect them from competition (is this a great country or what?) and allow problem gamblers onto the floor all for a measly 1% tax increase.

Can Missourians be bought so cheaply? Even if Missourians are willing to whore themselves to the Las Vegas gambling interests, won't we salvage a shred of pride so that we're not cheap whores? At least not the cheapest in the neighborhood?

Does anybody else here remember when casinos were first sold to Missouri? Maybe old folks like me have begun to forget, but the discussion wasn't about casinos - we were all talking about "Riverboat Gambling". Nobody talked about garish neon monstrosities - we were promised old-fashioned steam ships cruising our scenic shores. Like many others, I voted in favor of the measure, with visions of playing a few games of poker while cruising up and down the river front. I'm a sucker for Mark Twain and sarsaparilla.

We were duped. Soon after the election, lo and behold, we learned that the riverboats wouldn't actually be riverboats, and that they would look like Times Square whorehouses instead of the Delta Queen. Suckers.

We were also told back then that our schools would benefit from massive infusions of money. Suckers.

We were told that the industry would not damage our communities. Suckers. Last year there were over 1600 crimes that were directly casino-related, not counting the sad crimes of desperation done by pathetic addicts hidden throughout out communities.

Finally, we were told that we would be protected by loss limits. Yes, that was a part of the campaign, and an earnest promise made by the same out-of-state gambling interests when they were trying to talk themselves into our state. Now, they want to free themselves of their obligations. They want to be free to encourage compulsive gamblers to go "all in' with their life savings, and their children's futures, and they want to be able to turn a blind eye when criminals invade the casino floors.

But they want to talk about shiny apples and schools.

How stupid do they think we are?

Vote No on Proposition A.

Star on Amendment 4 - Conspiracy or Breakdown?

The Kansas City Star came out today with an endorsement of Missouri Constitutional Amendment #4. I suspected the endorsement was on its way when the Star's Prime Buzz avoided linking to my analysis of the giveaway to real estate and heavy construction. While I wouldn't even want to hint at a sense of entitlement to a link from another blog, the "Blog Watch" feature of the Prime Buzz is fairly generous in linking to political analysis in other blogs.

The Powers That Be seem to have decided that the less voters know about Amendment #4, the better, and it appears that the Kansas City Star has decided to sit back and allow that to happen. In three short paragraphs regarding Amendment #4, the Star manages to deliver a falsehood and a misdirection. Here, in it's entirety, is the complete coverage provided by the Kansas City Star on Amendment #4 during this entire election cycle:

The state deserves more leeway in how it uses tax-exempt bonds approved by voters 10 years ago for stormwater projects across Missouri, including in Kansas City.

The state wants to offer more loans, which have to be repaid by local utilities, and fewer grants, which don’t have to be repaid.

The change should lead to quicker access to the stormwater funds, allowing faster improvements. And it would not increase state taxes.

Paragraph 2 is a lie, and paragraph 3 is completely misleading.

While the Star claims that the Amendment will provide for more loans, the exact opposite is true. Quoting from the summary of the enabling legislation, "Currently, the Department of Natural Resources is required to provide both grants and loans using the funds resulting from the issuance of storm water control bonds, with 50% of the funding to be used for grants and 50% for loans. This amendment removes the percentage requirements as well as the requirement that both forms of financial assistance must be offered together. Additionally, the amendment removes the requirement that grants are limited to 50% of the cost of a storm water control project." I cannot explain how the Star managed to make such a wild misstatement, but it is one they should trouble themselves to correct. Whether it was from lack of research, complete misunderstanding, or they were bamboozled in one of their too-frequent editorial meetings with real estate developers and heavy construction leaders, they owe the public a correction.

As for the claim that the Amendment will not increase taxes, that's true only in the most technical sense. It does not increase taxes, but it eases the process for spending tax dollars, and allows more of them to be spent. To me, that is a whole lot like raising taxes. Denying that it raises taxes is kind of like saying that dynamiting a levee does not flood the land behind it. This Amendment "merely" blows a hole in the taxpayer protections that currently exist.

Furthermore, the Amendment goes further and diverts loan repayments away from taxpayers, so it will not be available to fund educational and medical needs of citizens, instead of fiscal needs of heavy construction and real estate developers. While that is technically not a tax increase, it will reduce tax revenue.

The Star has failed to provide news coverage regarding Amendment #4. Its brief editorial is 2/3 wrong. It is even refusing to link to sources that do provide strong analysis and thorough research. Is the Star part of a conspiracy of silence to keep voters ignorant, or did they simply have a complete breakdown in their research and analysis?

Clint Zweifel and Brad Lager - People versus Powerbrokers

The Campaign Finance Reports filed by Clint Zweifel and Brad Lager provide a fascinating view into the role of money in the race. Brad Lager's report shows 9 heavy-hitters providing over half of his funds, while Clint Zweifel's report shows almost double the number of donations as Lager. Fortunately for Zweifel, his massive popularity propelled him to a victory in total dollars, as well as donors.

I've met Clint Zweifel and he's going to be a great treasurer.

As for Brad Lager, I formed my opinion of him back in 2006, and nothing I've seen since has changed it.

Looking Down Ballot - Missouri Constitutional Amendment #4 - Stormwater Changes

Constitutional Amendment #4 is a classic "down ballot" item. It's confusing, with no practical impact apparent to the average voter, and nobody is going to talk about it before the election. Nobody is spending money to oppose it, and the people who stand to profit from it are smart enough to lay low and not draw any attention. No billboards on I-70 will be exhorting citizens to oppose or support Constitutional Amendment #4. So it provides me with a rare opportunity to be the sole voice in opposition to a statewide issue, and I'm cantankerous enough to take it.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4.

Here's the language that will appear on your ballot:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change provisions relating to the
financing of stormwater control projects by:

limiting availability of grants and loans to public water and
sewer districts only;

removing the cap on available funding and existing restrictions on
disbursements;

requiring loan repayments to be used only for stormwater control projects?

It is estimated the cost to state governmental entities is $0 to $236,000 annually.
It is estimated state governmental entities will save approximately $7,500 for each bond
issuance. It is estimated local governmental entities participating in this program may
experience savings, however the amount is unknown.

Here's a more informative piece about the enabling legislation. 99 out of 100 voters will read this language and vote "yes" or "no" without understanding what in the heck it is really about. Because we're polite, docile voters who assume that measures like these are about helping to build necessary storm sewers, 56 of those voters will vote "yes", and the wealthy real estate interests and heavy construction companies will toast our ignorance with fine champagne.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 WILL TRANSFER MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPER-WEALTHY SPECIAL INTERESTS.

A few weeks ago, I did a post that included a mention of how Kansas City is controlled by "dirt and concrete" - the twin interests of heavy construction and holders of prime real estate. It should come as no surprise that the same interests of dirt and concrete control much of what happens in Jefferson City, too. Constitutional Amendment #4 will enable millions of tax dollars - money that will not go to support education or children who need healthcare - to be spent on storm water projects designed to enhance property values of favored interests and generate millions of dollars in revenue for the heavy construction companies that will install those storm sewers.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 MISLEADS THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT STAKE.

Alert readers will note that my claim that millions of dollars will be transferred is controverted by the very language that will appear on the ballot. Gone Mild claims that millions are at stake, while the ballot language pegs it at a measly few hundred thousands of dollars.

Who is right? Gone Mild, of course.

The figure included on the ballot is only the amount of money that will go to hire a few people to shovel the real money to the interests of dirt and concrete. The millions of dollars that will get transferred will come from other appropriations, so they don't get counted. It's kind of like if someone gives you the keys to a vault full of gold, and you claim that they only gave you a $3 key.

In this case, that key opens the door to about $150 million in tax dollars that got approved a decade ago, but hasn't yet found its way to the people that lust for it. Tax law changes are part of the reason, but this Amendment goes beyond making a few technical changes in tax laws. In fact, it abolishes the requirement approved by the voters that half the give-away be in the form of loans. It also eliminates a $20 million cap on the size of the projects we taxpayers will be paying for.

PASSAGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 WILL SUPPORT VOTER DISENGAGEMENT.

The reason you don't know more about Amendment #4 is not because you're stupid. It's because the powers that be expect you to docilely support a multi-million dollar giveaway without bothering to provide you with justification or even explanation. In fact, they are probably right. I expect that this Amendment will pass, because Missourians have lost touch with their "Show me" attitude, and will assume that something like this wouldn't have made it to the ballot if it weren't a good idea. In a climate where the interests of dirt and concrete can fleece the public for $150 million dollars without even undertaking a massive PR campaign to explain why, ignorant voters are a useful tool. As long as we go along with misleading down ballot measures and can be relied on to pass them without demanding to know what they are, we will continue to be surprised by finding provisions like this one coiled and hissing in the middle pages of our ballots.

Looking Down Ballot - Missouri Constitutional Amendment #1 - English Only

As promised last week, I'll be offering my opinions on the various measures that show up "down ballot" from the big Presidential and Gubernatorial races. Here is a sample ballot for Kansas City voters, and a new voter expecting to show up and cast a vote for Obama might be surprised to see page after page of judges, candidates, amendments and propositions. (If you live outside of Kansas City, it should be fairly simple to google your local election board and find a sample ballot online.) A little preparation can help you vote wisely in these important, but less publicized electoral offerings.

Constitutional Amendment #1 is a prime example of the danger of unprepared voting.

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to add a statement that English shall be the language of all governmental meetings at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy is formulated whether conducted in person or by communication equipment including conference calls, video conferences, or Internet chat or message board?

An off-the-cuff review of this proposal might leave a voter thinking that this is a reasonable step which could prevent our public meetings from turning into cacophonous, confusing messes. An unprepared voter could fail to see just how bad this Amendment is.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1.

It is tempting to do a little armchair psychoanalysis of why this has been put on our ballot, and speculate about wedge issues and xenophobia and the creation of fear of differences, but that is heated territory that will deepen the very divide I would prefer to bridge. Instead, I will focus not on the motivations of its proponents, but on the practical effect of this Constitutional Amendment.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 WOULD WEAKEN OUR ABILITY TO GOVERN EFFECTIVELY.

Quite simply, Amendment #1 handcuffs government in dealing with its citizens. It is simply a fact of life that some groups of people in Missouri are more adept at languages other than English. This has been a fact here in Missouri since the beginning of human population, as the Illini, Osage and other tribes shared Missouri, through the French settlements that continued speaking French long after the Louisiana Purchase, through the quaint German communities along the Missouri, and continuing now as groups of Hispanic, Vietnamese and Sudanese immigrants form distinct communities in our urban areas. Missouri has never, ever, been a mono-lingual state, and yet it has never, ever felt the need to enshrine English as our official language.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 IS DANGEROUS TO OUR SAFETY.

To be effective, particularly in times of emergency, a government must communicate quickly and effectively with its citizens. Amendment #1 would prevent government from holding meetings in languages other than English. If the police want to hold a public meeting to discuss a rise in gang activity in a non-english speaking community, it would be illegal for them to conduct it in the language of the people who would be most helpful and knowledgeable. If a public health crisis were to emerge within a non-english speaking community (perhaps a virus or tainted food), the government would be specifically prohibited from holding a meeting, conference call or even an internet chat board to discuss the problem in the language of the impacted population.

Why would we want to prevent our government from communicating in the most effective method for the specific purpose?

What would happen if an immigrant from Bosnia or Georgia or the Sudan or Guatemala showed up with a rare strain of influenza, threatening a repeat of the great Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918? Do we really want to prevent our government from communicating with a specific population on how to prevent its transmission, or even how to comply with a quarantine?

Again, why would we want to prevent our government from communicating in the most effective method for the specific purpose?

Is anybody really concerned that the Hispanic hoards are going to take over our government and we'll have to beg for our government queso? (Heck, they can't even get a seat on our school board, where they comprise a quarter of the constituency.) Does anyone mistakenly believe that this Amendment would prevent us from needing to scroll through the language choice screen at the ATM? (It won't.) Does anyone really believe that the new immigrants coming here for a bigger slice of the economic pie are going to fail to adopt the dominant language, just as the German, Polish, Italian, Russian, French, Chinese populations that preceded them?

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 IS UNNECESSARY AND DANGEROUS.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1.

Looking Down Ballot - Judicial Retention Elections

While almost everyone in the State of Missouri knows how they will vote in the "big" elections, many of us get thrown off our game when we get "down ballot". It's easy to know who you're voting for at the President and Governor level, but when you get down to some of the propositions and the judicial retention ballots, it's easy to find yourself resorting to guesswork.

This year, Jackson Countians will face a list of judges and a decision on whether or not to retain each of them. The judges are as follows:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
Patricia Breckenridge

16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (JACKSON COUNTY)
CIRCUIT JUDGES
Michael W. Manners
John R. O'Malley
Ann Mesle
Peggy Stevens McGraw
Kelly Moorhouse (Judge Moorhouse died earlier this week, but her name will be on the ballot. I'll be casting my vote for retention as a tiny tribute to a fine woman and a great public servant.)
John M. Torrence
Robert M. Schieber
Brian C. Wimes

ASSOCIATE CIRCUIT JUDGES
Robert Beaird
Vernon E. Scoville, III
Robert L. Trout

Unless you're a lawyer or a courthouse regular, you've probably never heard of most of these individuals. How should you vote?

Despite a wide variety in their backgrounds and experience levels, I encourage you strongly to vote in favor of each of these judges. The links on their names will direct you to the Missouri Bar's Judicial Evaluation of each of them, and they are an impressive lot. If you live in Missouri outside of Jackson County, you will have a different list of judges to vote for, and you can get those judicial evaluations, as well, at the Missouri Bar judicial evaluation website.

Even if you're going to simply take my advice and vote to retain each of the judges, I'd encourage you to take a few minutes and look at the evaluations. They will demonstrate to you just how well the Missouri Plan works.

The process is above traditional politics. By all rights under traditional politics, for example, I ought to be vigorously opposing Judge Breckenridge. She's a Republican - and she got her initial appointment from John Ashcroft, and her Supreme Court appointment from Matt Blunt. Those are the sort of credentials that ought to have a "yellow dog democrat" like me demanding to have her driven from office.

But she's a fine judge brought to us by a good process. People who know the law and the judges nominated her to be considered as one of three candidates for her position, based on her judicial temperament, legal ability and other factors aimed at picking great judges instead of great partisans. As a Missouri citizen, I sincerely do not care how Patricia Breckenridge the citizen votes when she casts her presidential ballot, but I care deeply that when she votes on cases in her job as Missouri Supreme Court judge, she does so on the facts and the law. As demonstrated by her outstanding scores in the evaluation process, a vast majority of Missouri lawyers, of all political persuasions, agree with me.

The same thing goes for all the other judges on this year's Jackson County ballot.

If you don't trust lawyers to evaluate the judges, though, I strongly encourage you to look at the juror evaluations. These are submitted by jurors (your peers) who have personally witnessed the judge in action. The scores are virtually unanimous that the judges listed have treated people equally and with dignity and were well prepared, etc.

I fully expect that each of the judges listed above will be retained by wide margins. Ironically, the opponents of the Missouri Plan will argue that those margins demonstrate that the voters aren't smart enough to be trusted to retain only the good ones. They are all good ones. The system is working. Go look at the thorough information available to you, and you can vote with complete confidence.

The Missouri Plan has given you an excellent set of judges. Retain them, and support politicians from either party who promise to retain the Missouri Plan.

Why Change When Things Are Going So Badly?

Here in Kansas City, I suppose we prefer our change in small doses. The Jackson County election board chose yesterday to adopt a new district map "that created the least disturbance from the current boundaries, while evening up populations without shaking up the racial demographics."

The reason given for rejecting the Unity map, which would have seized an opportunity to strike a blow to the heart of our segregationist past and "Us vs. Them" present? "The panel thought Option 3 presented too disruptive of a change to be considered for a single election."

Two responses -

Is this the same election commission that "shuffled the deck" during the 2007 primaries, and provided voters with false information about where to vote? It seems to me that was a pretty disruptive change to pull - why so pusillanimous now?

Second, and more positively - this is the sort of reaction that we need to anticipate. There is a deep, deep bias in favor of the status quo, even when it isn't working and change is clearly required. There will be an opportunity to redistrict again in 2012. I'm in for the long haul - when are the commissioners' term limits up?

Jumping Ship, Onward Obama!

Sorry, Hillary, it's over. A Democratic victory in the General is more important than a Clinton victory in the Primary, and my previous analysis that she is the least "Rove-able" (and hence, more likely to win in the General) has been nullified by the damage to the Democratic Party which will result from her continued campaign.

The historical race has settled into a normal campaign between warring camps, and I no longer believe the Obama supporters would be able to support Clinton enthusiastically even if some miracle gave her the nomination.

I still think she was a great candidate, and less susceptible to being redefined by Rove and the compliant corporate press, but I no longer see any plausible path to the Clinton White House.

I am enthusiastically pro-Obama. Onward to the White House.

How I Would Have Defeated the Bus Tax, or Thank You to Incompetent Rightwing Political Consultants

I supported the 15-year extension of the Bus Tax, and I voted in favor of it. It won handily - I even visited the Election Watch party in support of the issue and had a few of their tasty meatballs.

The people at the party were thanking each other, but they really should have been thanking Jeff Roe, the rightwing political consultant who led the opposition. If he had run a competent campaign, the 3/8 cent sales tax would have gone down in flames.

With the anonymous money thrown at Jeff Roe, I could have delivered a victory for the opponents.

Simply stated, choose a clean message and deliver it. Truly, it is that simple. There were enough real weaknesses in this tax extension that a good message would have spread like a virus to defeat this tax. The choices were out there. While I would have worked through a focus group to choose which one worked best, some of the options would have been:

- "Where'd Our Money Go?" - This catch-phrase would have focused on the lack of clarity surrounding the $22 million in revenue. Truth is, a lot of the money will be going to "planning" and other soft costs that don't really appeal to the average taxpayer. Making the KCATA explain exactly how it will be spending $22 million for 15 years would have put the pro-tax effort in an awkward, defensive position. Bus riders are a small percentage of the voting public, and most voters don't trust that the ATA spends its money wisely. Visually, show a bus covered in dollars pulling away from a frustrated taxpayer.

- "Not so fast!" - This campaign would exploit the fact that this tax extension really is a little premature. We don't have a light rail plan, we don't know how our bus system will work with whatever light rail plan we get, and the current tax doesn't run out until March of next year. Voters could be persuaded that it would be better to work it all out together in November. Visually, show a squad car pulling over a bus.

- "Where does it stop?" - Voters hate being duped. This tax was approved for 5 years back in 2003. Now they want 15 more years. Again, where's the plan for a sustainable transportation program? Visually, show a bus full of taxpayers trying to exit a bus driven by a maniacal driver, who won't stop.

Fortunately, the consultant behind the opposition ran a far weaker campaign. Instead of choosing a message and hammering it home, he tried to slam the plan and TIF financing and Kay Barnes, all while playing cutesy games like naming the organization Kansas Citians Against Tax Abuse (KCATA). Really, just dumb. Why undercut your credibility by looking like a fraud-feasor? Why run against TIF pigs when the connection is so tenuous? Why drag the former Mayor into it?

Whatever the reasons, I'm truly grateful that Jeff Roe got his hands on the money spent by the opposition. If that money had been spent effectively, the tax would not have been extended. Incompetence saved the day.

If I were Sam Graves, I would be getting nervous. Will Roe take down Graves, too?

"I'm F*ing Obama"

I'm still on board for Hillary, but this is pretty darned funny . . .

All Politics is Local

Yesterday evening, the my lovely spouse and I hosted a neighborhood get-together at our home for Jason Kander. I put hand-written notes on the invitation I delivered up and down my street, and was pleased to see the turn-out of neighbors who at least wanted to meet this liberal who had volunteered for Afghanistan.

Politically, Jason hit it out of the park, as I knew he would. He's a polished speaker and you can tell he really enjoys meeting and listening to people. I'm pretty sure that when I put his yard sign out next year, it will have several twins on the block.

It was great to hear and see my neighbors, though, and their issues. The woman across the street is frustrated by Governor Blunt's mishandling of the fee offices for auto licensing. The Republican from down the street thanked Jason for his service. We all had different issues and concerns, and we discussed them freely over drinks and snacks.

Personally, I wouldn't want to run for office, and expose myself to all the negativity that comes with even a "clean" campaign. I'm not quick enough or clever enough to jump from discussing license offices to education to Medicare to the intricacies of energy conservation.

I'm really glad that Jason Kander is willing to do it, though, and that he does it so well. And I'm glad that my neighborhood came out to meet him and see for themselves who he is and what he believes. Politics last night was as local as it gets, and it kind of gave me goosebumps to see democracy working.

Jason Kander - Brookside to Afghanistan to Jefferson City

I met Jason Kander a couple years ago, and was immediately struck by his intensity and intelligence. Since that time, I've bumped into him every now and then, and shared a couple meals with him, and I remain impressed with his sincerity and involvement. We have disagreed on several issues, and he has always been exactly the sort of person I should emulate - respectful, informed, rational, and focused on finding common ground.

As I have noted twice in the past (1, 2), Jason Kander went to Afghanistan as a member of the military, and served our country with distinction. In his powerful final post, he wrote one of my favorite quotations describing the consistency of being a progressive in the military:

I'm a Progressive Democrat, so when I get into debates about the war with ill-informed, indoctrinated regressives who don't know me well, they generally throw Rush's talking points at me, insinuating that I love my country and support the troops just a bit less than them. Whether you've served or not, love of country isn't about blind faith. It is not about a piece of cloth that I wear on the shoulder of my uniform, but about an idea, about Americans themselves. I have little patience for those who claim to love America but clearly can't stand the majority of Americans. As a progressive, my beef with President Bush isn't that he's fighting a war, it's that he's doing it wrong. I want to win every bit as badly as he does, if not more, but I believe that means the symbol of America can't just be a soldier with an M-16.

Jason Kander's eagerness to live a life of service is now leading him to seek elective office, and I am pleased to be one of his early endorsers. He is seeking election to the 44th district of the Missouri State House of Representatives - the seat which will be vacated when Jenee Lowe leaves office next year. That seat represents Brookside, Waldo and a good chunk of the poltically-active Ward Parkway corridor. His interests reflect those of his district - he is particularly strong on health care, education, and the environment.

Normally, I resist endorsing candidates until I know who else may be in the race. I don't have that hesitation in this case - I am confident that no other candidate will approach Jason Kander's intelligence, integrity and determination. Kander has the leadership skills and the knowledge to win against any challenger, and, more importantly, to be effective in Jefferson City. Simply stated, Jason Kander has the Right Stuff to represent me and my district in Jefferson City.

My Personal Primary

This is an unseemly part of the election cycle, when states like Iowa and New Hampshire fight for the extra attention attendant on being the first voters in the nomination of the Republican and Democratic tickets. The result of all this nonsense is that bad ideas that appeal to Iowans get taken seriously, and every diner and American Legion hall in the state gets visited by men and women who would normally not touch down in Iowa unless the Iowa Air National Guard scambled both its crop dusters to force their plane down.

Iowans are the spoiled brats of American politics. I've never met an American president - Iowans meet every single candidate when they go to the grocery store, and get snippy if the candidates don't know them by their first names. Ideas like ethanol subsidies would be laughed out of a rational congress, but they are part of our political landscape because both parties' leadership wants to appeal to the farmers in overalls that serve as the face of corporate farms in Iowa.

I want that kind of attention, and I've devised a plan to get it. I am announcing that the Gonemild Primary will be held on January 7, 2008 - a full week before the Iowa caucuses. That will give the campaigns a week to spin the results (winners trumpet them, losers dismiss them, and the pack finds strengths to be built upon . . .) before the Iowans get there shot. Between now and that day, I'll be available on a first ask, first serve basis to show up at barbecues and county fairs, where politicians of both parties can fawn over me and listen to my most innane babblings.

While most regular readers have probably detected a subtle democratic bias on this site, I want to assure the national media that the Gonemild Primary will have results for both Republicans and Democrats. Some may wonder exactly how the mechanics of this will work, since I'm the only person "in" Gonemild. Well, you'll just have to trust me that the process is fair and rational, and a good deal easier to understand than the Iowa Caucus system. As for the predictive value of my results, I 100% guaranty that they will be at least as accurate as the process that nominated Harkin, Gephardt and Bush the Elder over Reagan.

Just so that nobody will question my integrity, I should announce that I will NOT be accepting direct bribes for this service. I will accept free meals, though, and I will gently hint that candidates who favor subsidies for craft brewing and tax rebates for parents with two children in college will probably do better than those who refuse to take those positions. Oh, yeah, and getting out of that Iraq thing, too.

Local TV and radio stations may submit cash gifts to express their gratitude to me for the obscene amounts of ad revenue they will be receiving.

Oh, yeah, a final hint before the process starts. My lawn needs mowing, and it would be a fine photo op for a candidate trying to lose that "Eastern elite" taint. I'm looking at you, Romney and Biden. Get on it.