 |
|
 |
September 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
MO MEDIA WATCH: Kudos To The News-Leader
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:40am | Permalink
Earlier this week, this site published a letter from State Rep. Steve Hunter (R-Joplin) to newspaper editors throughout the state in which Hunter challenged Attorney General Jay Nixon’s recent flourish of pro-Sunshine Law rhetoric. Hunter has seen first hand just how hypocritical Nixon can be on the issue as he filed a public records request with Nixon nearly three months ago for records pertaining to the embattled Second Injury Fund (SIF), which Nixon oversees. To date, Nixon has stonewalled Hunter’s request.
Unfortunately, Hunter’s letter, which he sent to editors one week ago, had not appeared in a major newspaper until this morning when the Springfield News-Leader appropriately ran it as a letter to the editor. (h/t Combest) Hopefully, others papers will follow the News-Leader’s lead and provide the public with an objective picture of the ongoing debate over Sunshine Law compliance.
Moreover, Nixon’s stonewalling of Hunter’s request raises questions and suspicions pertaining to Nixon’s mismanagement of the much-maligned SIF. Hunter is no Henry Waxman, and this site means that as a compliment. He is not on some witch hunt armed to the teeth with subpoenas and partisan hyperbole over Nixon’s stonewalling. He simply requested records pertaining to the much-maligned SIF, which he and other legislators seek to reform, but Nixon won’t fork them over. Why won’t Nixon hand over the records? What is he hiding? Sounds like a situation cued for media coverage.
|
 |
|
 |
|
September 27, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nixon Rebuffs State Rep. In Property Tax Relief Request
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:45pm | Permalink
Three months ago, Attorney General Jay Nixon was asked to weigh in on a local tax dispute that pitted a St. Louis area fire union against local taxpayers. In June, State Rep. Walt Bivins (R-Oakville), who supports local taxpayers in their drive to reduce their fire district’s tax rate, requested an opinion from Nixon regarding the ability of a fire district to place on the ballot a measure to decrease the district’s property tax rate. The request put Nixon in a precarious position between a powerful and traditionally pro-Democrat fire union that opposed a rate decrease and local taxpayers who are increasingly miffed by their ever growing property tax bills.
Yesterday, The Call newspaper reported (3rd story from the top) that Nixon’s office decided against issuing an opinion in the matter, which amounts to a second victory for the fire union following a circuit court decision earlier this year that iced a ballot proposal that sought nearly $10 million in property tax relief and prompted Bivins request. Bivins reacted to Nixon’s inaction by echoing his constituents’ disgust with the present situation, and he said it appeared state legislators would be left to do the heavy lifting on the issue.
Bivins is on target when it comes to the necessity of legislative action, and who can blame him? To date, Bivins and his constituents have watched helplessly as a circuit court issued a decision that gave no explanation for icing the ballot proposal that sought property tax relief, and now Nixon, the state’s so-called “top lawyer”, has wrung his hands of the issue. Recently, Republicans have begun to pay heed to a mounting taxpayer revolt against out of control property taxes. The ongoing struggle of Bivins and his constituents should add impetus to the need for immediate reform.
|
|
|
|
|
September 27, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Missouri Conservatives Make A Stand In S-CHIP Debate
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 11:10am | Permalink
Yesterday, the Democrat-controlled U.S. House voted 265-159 in favor of a massive $35 billion tax hike driven expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). In his latest column, conservative pundit Robert Novak appropriately deemed the Democratic plan, which was drafted in secret and shielded from amendents, “socialized medicine’s front door.” For a quick explanation of the socialized medicine/HillaryCare angle that has become increasingly prevalent, check out the Heritage Foundation’s video talking points (here and here).
In yesterday’s House vote, Representatives Blunt, Hulshof, Akin and Graves took a stand in opposition to the Democratic plan. Furthermore, Governor Matt Blunt voiced his support for S-CHIP but expressed his opposition to the Democratic plan to raise taxes. In their typical knee-jerk fashion, Missouri Democrats criticized Blunt for opposing the tax hike scheme.
While Democrats have brazenly pushed their tax-and-spend plan, conservatives have rallied behind President Bush’s fiscally conservative plan to reauthorize S-CHIP via the proliferation of $15,000 tax credits to American families. The details of Bush’s plan are examined in today’s edition of USA Today by Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt.
From Leavitt’s column:
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
|
|
|
|
|
September 27, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARTH TO NIXON: Rent A Car
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:45am | Permalink
Yesterday, the MRP took Attorney General Jay Nixon to task for illegally using a state vehicle to get him to and from campaign fundraising events. In a puzzling rebuttal to the Republican criticism in today’s KC Star, Nixon’s office conceded that Nixon does, in fact, use his state vehicle for campaigning, but he must do so for “security reasons.” One Nixon staffer even said Nixon’s use of the state vehicle was prompted by unnamed “concerns or threats.”
Unless the state vehicle Nixon uses is reinforced with titanium plating, bulletproof glass and gun turrets, it is hard to imagine why he can’t simply rent a car, expense it through his campaign, and allow his security entourage to accompany him to campaign events in a non-state vehicle. Furthermore, taxpayers have a right to know what Nixon’s office is spending on his security entourage if they are privately contracted. (The buzz in Jeff City is that Nixon’s security gents are actually just staffers from his official office.)
As if Nixon’s rebuttal wasn’t enough of a stretch, the MDP chimed in with their own half-baked refutation in which they attempted to criticize Governor Matt Blunt’s use of state vehicles. Unlike Nixon, whose use of state vehicles is voluntary, Blunt has no say in the matter, and the Democrats know it. Nonetheless, here is what the Highway Patrol, which is required by law to protect Blunt, had to say to the Star in response to the MDP’s bogus assertions:
The Highway Patrol is required by law to protect the governor and his family. Maj. Bret Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol gave a similar explanation, pointing to a state law that says, “The director of the governor’s security division shall provide transportation, security, and protection for the governor and the governor’s immediate family.” “It doesn’t say part of the time,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t say whether it’s going to the grocery store or on vacation. It says we provide him with the level of security we feel is adequate. “It doesn’t matter to us if he’s attending a political event.”
|
|
|
|
|
September 26, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nixon Chided For Stonewalling Public Records Request
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:15 PM | Permalink
Last Friday, State Rep. Steve Hunter (R-Joplin) penned a letter (see full content below) to newspaper editors throughout Missouri in which he questioned Attorney General Jay Nixon’s self-professed commitment to Sunshine Law compliance in light of Nixon’s ongoing failure to comply with a records request pertaining to the embattled Second Injury Fund (SIF).
The records request, which was filed by Hunter nearly three months ago, has become a bone of contention between Nixon and legislators who seek to reform the nearly insolvent SIF, which is overseen by Nixon. Hunter charges that Nixon has responded to the request with stonewalling tactics that have included the invocation of attorney-client privilege—not exactly the route one might expect when considering Nixon’s recent statements regarding the necessity of governmental compliance with such requests.
Unfortunately, Nixon’s ongoing failure to comply with the request submitted by Hunter, a fellow elected official, has been ignored thus far by Missouri media outlets, some of which have even granted Nixon a free pass to pile onto their criticism of public records compliance involving Republicans. Regardless of the media’s lack of interest in Nixon’s compliance troubles, this site will continue to keep its readers informed of developments associated with Hunter’s request and the ongoing efforts to reform the SIF.
Aside from Nixon’s obvious hypocrisy on the subject of compliance, one is left to wonder what he is hiding from Hunter and other legislators with his refusal to comply with the request. Could it be that Nixon’s refusal to comply is due to the SIF’s status as a kitty for Nixon’s single largest donor group—plaintiff lawyers? Time will tell.
TO: Newspaper Editors
FROM: Rep. Steve Hunter, Dist. 127
RE: E-mails As Open Records
DATE: September 21, 2007
Dear Editor,
I am writing this in response to the many articles that have been appearing nearly on a daily basis regarding whether e-mails are public record and should be released pursuant to a sunshine request.
Missouri’s Attorney General has been quoted as saying “There should be no debate — e-mail communications are public records.” I find this statement profoundly confusing.
On June 28, 2007, I submitted a sunshine request to Attorney General Jay Nixon requesting documents, including e-mails, relating to the troubled Second Injury Fund program in the Department of Labor and the Fund’s pending insolvency.
To provide a frame of reference, sometime in 2001 a decision was made to increase the maximum amount for which a Second Injury Fund case could be settled from $40,000 to $60,000. Since that time, payments from the Second Injury Fund have skyrocketed.
In an attempt to determine whether this decision made by the Attorney General’s office was a financially sound decision, I had asked a representative of Attorney General Nixon to appear during the legislative session at a committee hearing. In an effort to explain the rationale behind that decision, this attorney on behalf of the Attorney General stated that the decision was made in a meeting which included business groups and two current state senators.
I have spoken to many business groups and to both state senators, and everyone I have spoken to about this meeting denies any knowledge of the issue. As a result of the conflicting information, I submitted my sunshine request for e-mails relating to the Second Injury Fund.
The Attorney General responded on July 31, 2007 by saying they, “have been attempting to devise a systematic way to retrieve and review, to the extent possible, the many e-mail communications.”
To date, I have not received any e-mail communications from the Attorney General pursuant to my sunshine request. And I have not received information about whether or not the e-mails will be released as was promised in his letter.
My question – If e-mails are public record, why is the Attorney General having such difficulty devising a system to retrieve their own e-mails?
The Attorney General’s letter continues by saying, “It has become clear that fulfilling your request as it is currently drafted would be a massive undertaking involving a substantial redirection of this office’s resources.” The letter then comes to a close by saying, “many of these e-mails may be closed records constituting attorney-client communications…”
These e-mail communications are essential to determining why our Second Injury Fund is facing a billion dollars or more in liabilities.
As the lead law enforcement agent for the state of Missouri, and given his recent statements about e-mails being public records, I am completely dismayed by his lack of response to my request.
Is the Attorney General suggesting he is not subject to the sunshine law? Or is he simply suggesting the sunshine law only applies when it doesn’t mean too much extra work (i.e. substantial redirection of office resources)?
I am deeply troubled by the inconsistency between the Attorney General’s public statements which have been directed at Governor Blunt, and his official response to my sunshine request. Please feel free to contact my office if you need any additional information.
Respectfully,
Representative Steve Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
September 26, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last month, State Senator Jeff Smith (D-STL) blamed a casino lobbyist for her role in the debacle that led to him being charged with presenting a false ID yesterday.
Excerpt from a P-D story, 8/3/2007:
“[Smith] said he took Aull's card at the urging of an Isle of Capri lobbyist hosting Smith and other legislators. "Our host at the casino who handed me the card suggested that it would not be a problem to use it,” said Smith, 33. "In a momentary lapse of judgment, I took her advice.”
Ironically, it appears Smith has retained a lobbyist to defend him against the charges. According to a story in today’s P-D that focuses on the charges leveled against Smith and State Representative Joe Aull (D-Marshall), Smith referred media questions to Jefferson City attorney Joe Bednar, who is a registered state lobbyist with a stable of prominent corporate clients. Moreover, Bednar is a Democratic heavyweight who served as counsel to Democrats Mel Carnahan, Roger Wilson and Bob Holden, which may explain why no Democrats have yet to speak out against the actions of Smith and Aull.
|
|
|
|
|
September 25, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blunt, Other GOP Governors To Seek Higher Profile In Party’s Direction
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:10pm | Permalink
From The Politico comes news that Republican governors, including Missouri’s own Matt Blunt, plan to plot a strategy whereby they will assume a higher profile in the direction of the Republican Party. According to the story, top Republican governors, including Blunt, are scheduled to attend a gathering next month that will address that very issue.
Excerpt from The Politico story:
Next month, a small group of governors spearheading the effort will gather in Atlanta to begin exploring new policy positions on energy, conservation, education and health care that they believe are more attuned with public concerns and doable at the legislative level. The summit also will include a host of senior aides with expertise in policy, politics and communications who will be vital to translating the broad ideas into substantive legislative advances on the ground quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
September 25, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Fringe Group Infighting Could Impact Missouri Dems
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:05am | Permalink
Last night, PubDef provided the scoop on a growing and downright nasty rift between the formerly seemless Democratic front groups Pro-Vote and the SEIU. According to PubDef’s coverage, the SEIU is accusing Pro-Vote of an unpardonable sin in labor circles—union busting. The SEIU has even gone as far as to file an NLRB complaint against Pro-Vote. Pro-Vote denies the charges.
Excluding the present rift, Pro-Vote’s legacy has been one of virtual inseparability from the SEIU. Aside from sharing office space and staff, Pro-Vote ringleader John Hickey is the brother-in-law of former SEIU boss Grant Williams, whose method of raucous political protesting would put Cindy Sheehan to shame. Considering the current rift, you gotta wonder if Hickey yearns for the good ol’ days when Williams held the SEIU in check, and his biggest problem was springing bail money for Williams following a particularly rowdy protest. Ah yes, the good ‘ol days …
Excerpt from a 2003 Riverfront Times profile of the SEIU:
“The union [SEIU] and Hickey's group [Pro-Vote] were allies before Williams came back to town, but the working relationship has intensified. ProVote leases office space from SEIU, and ProVote's office manager, Marshall Rowland, runs the SEIU call center as part of a contract between the two groups.
ProVote and SEIU joined forces in March 2002 to protest President George W. Bush's campaign appearance for Talent, who was then running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Jean Carnahan. About 200 people, including Williams' wife and kids, gathered outside America's Center. Williams was identified as the leader of the vocal group that was too large for the protest area. Williams says that the Secret Service was worried about the protest and told the local police to cuff him -- perhaps if their leader was gone, the group would dissolve.
But they didn't. Even Williams' wife and kids stayed at the protest while Williams was going to jail, charged with disturbing the peace. During the bus ride on the way home, they gathered bail money to spring Williams.”
From a political perspective, the SEIU/Pro-Vote rfit has got to have Missouri Democrats concerned. In recent election cycles, Pro-Vote has made a name for itself as the leading foot soldier of Democratic voter registration efforts in Missouri, while the SEIU consistently ranks among the largest campaign donors to the MDP and top-tier Democratic candidates. Factor in 2008 gubernatorial aspirant Jay Nixon’s longstanding image problem in urban areas and it becomes quite clear that Democrats could suffer should the rift persist.
|
|
|
|
|
September 24, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whose Side is He On?
Nixon Echoes Plaintiffs In Ongoing School Funding Case
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:35am | Permalink
Missourinet is reporting that the Democrat-led coalition currently suing the state over allegations of inadequate school funding may appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. Despite the coalition's recent setback in circuit court, a bad Supreme Court ruling could still trigger a judge-mandated $1 billion tax increase on Missourians, which would undoubtedly please the powerful special interest supporters of the suit such as the Missouri National Education Association.
This past weekend, Attorney General Jay Nixon, whose office is supposed to be defending the state’s position in the suit, launched a poorly timed attack against the funding formula. Thus far, Nixon has outsourced work on the case to the firm of his former deputy for nearly $1.4 million in tax dollars, and he has been aided by conservative intervenors who have provided legal expertise in defense of the current formula. Yet, in a campaign stop in Sedalia covered by the Sedalia Democrat, Nixon parroted the arguments of the plaintiffs (i.e. his opponents) in the funding case:
“Nixon said Blunt and Republicans in Jefferson City had altered the foundation formula for public schools, reducing the amount to fully fund education by $500 million. ‘It’s a lot easier to say you voted to fully fund education if you reduce the amount going in,’ Nixon said.”
With his courtroom opponents considering an appeal to the Supreme Court, the timing of Nixon’s attack on the funding formula could not have been worse. Once again, Missouri taxpayers are left to wonder whether Nixon will forsake their interests for his political gain in court – as he has repeatedly done with his mishandling of abortion-related cases and, more recently, his blatant flop in the campaign donation limit case. Fortunately, in this instance, Nixon’s lack of ability and ethics are not the end of the story thanks to the involvement of more than capable conservative intervenors and, hopefully, the continued services of his pricey former deputy.
|
|
|
|
|
September 21, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not An Easy Fix
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:15pm | Permalink
Recently, a few Democratic state legislators took it upon themselves to help Attorney General Jay Nixon mend his fractured image with African-Americans. To get an idea as to how Nixon’s image among African-Americans became so fractured, check out the 1997 Roll Call article (pdf) in which former Congressman Bill Clay, arguably the most well-known African-American politician in Missouri history, likened Nixon to “Southern political leaders of the 1950s and 60s” in a letter to then President Bill Clinton.
As harsh as Clay’s words may seem, things only got worse between Nixon and his party’s African-American base during his infamous 1998 U.S. Senate campaign—his last truly competitive race. Although a decade has nearly passed, it will take more than photo-ops and advice from a few state legislators, many of which were not around in 1998, to bridge the longstanding chasm between Nixon and his party’s African-American base.
Even Democratic State Representative Jamilah Nasheed acknowledged that Nixon faces an uphill battle. From yesterday’s P-D article: "The big question is, how we're going to convince the community to back Jay. That's the hurdle."
|
|
|
|
|
September 21, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nixon Fundraising Update
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:05am | Permalink
After analyzing more than 2,200 itemized donations in Attorney General Jay Nixon’s July 2007 MEC report, Missouri Pulse is pleased to present an account of Nixon’s 2008 cycle fundraising to date. While the threat of a retroactive donation return could change everything, Nixon has raised approximately $3.5 million in itemized donations thus far. The five donor groups listed below represent Nixon’s top sources of financial support through the July 2007 MEC report.
2008 Cycle Fundraising Analysis As Of July 2007 MEC Report—Jay Nixon
Nixon’s Top 5 Donor Groups 
Nixon continues to rely on lawyers and law firms, which have already topped the $1 million threshold, for nearly $1 out of every $3 he raises. It is no surprise that plaintiff lawyers, arguably the most deep-pocketed special interest group in Missouri, have kicked in the lion’s share of lawerly support with familiar faces from Nixon’s controversial handling of the state’s tobacco settlement kicking in large sums. In other news, organized labor, a close second to plaintiff lawyers among Missouri Democratic special interests, picked up its previously tepid support for Nixon thanks, in large part, to a $100,000 donation from the public sector union AFSCME. Despite Nixon’s reliance on plaintiff lawyers and organized labor to fund his campaign, Democrats continue to gripe that Republicans have cornered the market on special interest support. Sadly for Democrats, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding – especially if there is a class-action suit against the pudding manufacturer!
|
|
|
|
|
September 20, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bond, McCaskill Split On Habeas Rights For Suspected Terrorists
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:40pm | Permalink
Yesterday, conservative Senate Republicans including Missouri’s own Kit Bond narrowly defeated a controversial measure that sought to grant habeas corpus rights to suspected terrorists.
Senator Claire McCaskill remained consistent in her support for extending such rights to suspected terrorists and prisoners of war. Interestingly enough, McCaskill found the time to cast a vote to extend rights to suspected terrorists a day after she snubbed Missouri veterans who, along with the rest of our nation’s soldiers, voluntarily put their lives on the line to lock up the very people McCaskill supports granting rights to.
Republican reactions to the measure from the AP:
[Sen. Lindsey Graham] said the system includes checks and balances to determine whether a person is being held unlawfully. Granting a ban on habeas corpus petitions would allow terrorism suspects to go "judge shopping" around U.S. courts to find a sympathetic ear, he said.
Added Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Never has such an unprecedented legal right been granted to a prisoner of war or detainee."
More...
Former terrorist prosecutor/National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy examines the 2006 legislation that triggered yesterday’s Senate vote.
|
|
|
|
| | |