Category Archives: government

 We are Victims of Trump’s Absurd Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

—-and I am furious.

(My monthly guest column on the editorial page of the Jefferson City News-Tribune addressed this topic yesterday but of necessity it was much shorter and somewhat less candid, perhaps because I had lowered the steam pressure after starting on this version.)

There must be a reason why the highly-praised Wharton School that President Trump attended has never invited him back as a speaker. I wonder if anyone has investigated to find out who wrote his papers for him or even took tests for him.

His favorite course must have been Bankruptcy 101 and he must have slept through class every day the word “tariff” came up. The graduation program for his class does not list him for any honors and just has his name among all of the other graduates.

Stop me before I tell you what I really think.

Here is a story some nice people in a gentle English town. Stay with us. By the time we are finished the story will be about a person in a big American town who puts the “bully” into the ;political phrase “bully pulpit.”

(The phrase began with Theodore Roosevelt, one of the four faces on Mt. Rushmore, a monument he thinks he should—something even less possible than him winning the Nobel Price for Peace.)  TR used the word “bully” as an adjective for “wonderful” or “superb.”

Sorry about that. We have wandered off the path.

Grasmere, a village of about 4,500 people in England’s Lake District, has been known for decades as the home of numerous poets, writers, artists, philosophers and other notables.

Poets William and sister Dorothy Wordsworth described it as “the loveliest spot that man hath ever found.”

William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (The Rime of the Ancient Mariner) are considered the founders of English Literature’s “Romantic Age.” Coleridge is said to have “muttered stanzas” of the Rime” while walking about the countryside nearby. The Wordsworths lived for a few years in Dove Cottage, where Coleridge also lodged for a time.

The Dove Cottage is still there as is The Swan, an inn where William sometimes dined with the famous poet Walter Scott.

More recently, Gordon Matthews Thomas Sumner had a home there. The world knows him better as the musical artist, Sting.

Perhaps better known than the poets, philosophers, and other notables who have lived there is Beatrix Potter, who gave the world Peter Rabbit and his friends. She also lived in the Lake District.

It was a coolish, dampish English day when we were there and we didn’t get to spend as much time as we wished, but that’s a penalty we paid for trying to hit some of the highlights of three countries—England, Wales, and Scotland in two weeks.

We had our lunch at the Grasmere Tea Room, ate outside on that pleasantly cool afternoon. I think we had Paninis, having a desire to break from fish and chips (we call them French Fries here). But we had been warned of interlopers that we were told were particularly aggressive that day—Jackdaws, a relative of crows and ravens. They liked to snatch food from tables.

Grasmere is, as is the case with many European communities, an old place, one where a 200-year old building is still relatively new.  We have avoided describing it as “picturesque” because we imagine the locals have heard their town referred to that way and it has become cloying to them.

And “quaint” is a condescending word, too, so we didn’t use it.  We liked Grasmere. It’s one of several small places we visited that we’d like to return to, despite the Jackdaws.

To the ancient Celts, Jackdaws were sacred birds that nested in church steeples, symbolic church guards. Like their Crow and Raven relatives, they are considered quite intelligent. We kind of thought the one perched on the back of a chair about twenty feet from our table was scheming to poach some of our lunch. But we kept a sharp eye on it and never let it have a chance.

What has all of this to do with Trump’s politically silly and nationally-damaging tariffs? We have vented about this in earlier posts but this time it’s personal.

Our excellent tour guide, Charlie Reader, gave us something else for which Grasmere is widely known.

We each got a couple of hand-wrapped gingerbreads. And we loved them.

More than 170 years ago, Victorian Cook Sarah Nelson began making gingerbreads in her 17th century home, using her “secret recipe” (that is still secret).  Grasmere Gingerbreads are a cross between a cake and what the English call a biscuit—a cracker to us.

Sarah’s secret recipe now is guarded by Joanne and Andrew Hunter, third generation owners of the business which still operates from Sarah’s house. I wish we had known of the gingerbread house before we left the town—and had the time to visit it.  But bus tours being bus tours, we had to be on our way after lunch.

The BBC has provided some looks at Sarah’s story and the wonderful products she created.

Bing Videos

Bing Videos

When we got home, I decided to secretly order a dozen of these gingerbreads to be delivered to our home each month. It was going to be a surprise Christmas present for Nancy but the surprise fell though when Diane Gallagher (probably) called from Grasmere and Nancy answered the phone. “There’s a lady from Grasmere on the phone asking for you,” she announced before listening to the conversation. Diane was calling to confirm the order.  The first order came in the tin you see here. Subsequent orders have come in hand-wrapped paper packaging and are refills for the tin.

Each month we have looked forward to finding our little package by our front door about the 10th of each month.  But on September 5, we received a note from Diane announcing the package had been shipped three days earlier but she understood “there have been delays at Customs and your parcel is due for delivery today.”

Then she wrote:

We believe the delays are because the US Government has now abolished the exemption for any parcel under a value of $800 from import duties.  This may mean that you will be liable for import duties on delivery of the parcel.  We are still trying to find out exactly what this will mean in monetary terms, but have reason to believe that for the next six months there will be a flat fee of $80 per parcel being sent from the UK. 

Eighty dollars on a $30 package!!!

This is the results of Donald Trump’s ill-advised removal of the “de minimis” exemption for small packages from foreign countries. Packages worth less than $800 were exempt from tariffs until August 29 when he decided even the smallest item would cost a lot more.

The Universal Postal Union says postal deliveries from around the world to the United States dropped by EIGHTY PERCENT within two weeks after our economic genius President scribbled his name on the bottom of his executive order.

We were supposed to take delivery on Wednesday, September 10. Instead we got a “reschedule” notice from UPS telling us, “UPS is preparing your package for clearance. We will notify you if additional information is needed.”

Diane told us it would be okay to refuse to pay the duties. Afterward the company could tell the UPS to destroy the parcel and the amount remaining on our order would be refunded.

The order from Grasmere was held up for the better part of a week before it cleared customs in Louisville, Kentucky (why Louisville, we don’t know), and was to arrive at our house on Wednesday, September 10.

We decided to pay the duty because the folks in Grasmere had produced the gingerbreads and had shipped them to us in good faith but we decided to have them hold onto the rest of our funds until our country regained this small part of its sanity and allows something so benign as Grasmere Gingerbread to be shipped to Missouri without a duty or a tariff that our President is unable to admit punishes his own citizens.

Trump says his tariffs will force foreign manufacturers to build factories in this country. I am quite sure that Joann and Andrew Hunter are not going to establish a gingerbread manufacturing plant in this country because of this petty policy.

But if you are accumulating evidence of how idiotic Trump’s tariff policy is working, we offer this observation as a good example.

We are puzzled by the whole tariff/duty business even more because while we were waiting for our gingerbreads to trickle through the customs bureaucracy, we found a book on our doorstep that we had ordered from a company in Delhi, India.  It took only ten days from the day I ordered it for it to arrive. I ordered the book on September 5. The company in Delhi gave it to FedEx on the tenth and five days later it was on my doorstep. Clearly, somebody in the customs office was asleep at the switch.

The gingerbreads?  They were mailed on September 2, three days before the book was ordered and eight days before the book was shipped.

On Friday, September 25, we got a notice from UPS:

The status of your package has changed.

Exception Reason: The customs clearance has failed and the shipment is abandoned

UPS told us on September 10 that the package was being prepared for clearance. We were to be notified if more information was needed.  We were not notified of anything until the message that Grasmere Gingerbread package apparently is such a threat to our national security that it would be dangerous for it to be shipped from Louisville, Kentucky where it has been losing its freshness for three weeks.

We got a new note from from Diane;

On 18th September we asked UPS to destroy the parcels that had not cleared Customs, but it appears that this has not yet happened for all parcels.  As well as the severe delays through Customs, it appears that parcels valued at less than £20 are incurring import duties of just under $70, which is just not viable.  For these reasons, our directors have taken the decision to suspend shipping to the US and Canada temporarily. 

I am very sorry about this. 

UPS told us:

Exception Reason: Package cannot clear due to customs delay or missing info. Attempt to contact sender made. Package has been disposed of.

Amazing. After all these months, UPS told us the reason UPS apparently could not get a straight answer from the customs people about the reason—it’s either “customs delay” or it’s “missing info.”  What missing info?   We are unlikely to ever learn why there was a delay and what information was missing in this shipment that wasn’t a problem earlier.

It’s a little package of a dozen Gingerbreads, for God’s sake!!!

It’s disgusting. But our president has taken “disgusting” to unprecedented levels in so many things.

I have notified Diane of our sincere apologies for the embarrassment this administration is. I wish we could go back to that beautiful part of our world to do it in person—-

—because he is creating so many things to apologize to the world for.

Is it too late for Wharton to ask for its diploma back?

(photos by BP. Gingerbread by the Grasmere Gingerbread Co., videos from the BBC)

Lincoln

Posted on by
1

(Before we dip our pen in acid for this entry, please let us observe a bit of a milestone. This page represents page 3,000 of these entries. Today we will plod toward word number 1,300,000. We are sure that we are the only one who has read every word and every page.)

If you’ve been along for a long, long time, maybe you should send yourself a sympathy card.

Now, on with the show:)

Lincoln

Some people just have the right names.

Lincoln Hough SOUNDS like a Republican Senator’s name.

He is one.

But he’s in trouble—

—-because Lincoln Hough is not above thinking. And speaking his mind.

Because he had the nerve to suggest that the Missouri Senate was going against everything the Missouri Senate has stood for, he has been slapped down by his party.

Hough objected to the final dismantling of the Senate’s legacy as a deliberative, respectful, collegial part of government when his party’s majority leadership rammed two questionable bills through a short special legislative session to satisfy the self-serving demand of an increasingly dictatorial President and a desire by his party to mangle the concept of majority vote.

His party leaders have increasingly through the years stifled minority opposition to issues by passing motions to limit or prohibit discussion.  Hough is one of two Senate Republicans who had the courage to vote against the bills in the special legislative session, and to vote against ending debate on them.  Within minutes after the session adjourned, the leader of the Senate majority went to his office and fired him as the chairman of arguably the Senate’s most important committee, the one that writes the Senate’s version of the state budget.

Lincoln Hough told The Missouri Independent that as far as he was concerned, the Missouri Senate died at 1:42 p.m. on Friday, September 12 when debate was blocked on the bill weakening the First Amendment right of citizens  “to petition their government for a redress of grievances,” as it is put in the Bill of Rights.

This was one of the darkest weeks I’ve served during my time in the senate.

If the votes that I cast this week that I believed were in the best interests of my constituents in Springfield, the State of Missouri, and the institution of the Missouri Senate put me at odds with the President Pro Tem of the Senate cost me my chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee then so be it. I wouldn’t change any of them.

I’m looking forward spending my time and energy during my last session on the floor of the senate working every day to restore this institution to place of honor I inherited from Senators Richard and Wasson.

Ron Richard, from Joplin, is the only person in Missouri history to serve as Speaker of the House and President Pro Tem of the Senate. Bill Wasson was Hough’s predecessor in the Senate.

I believe in a process where members are given an opportunity to have a conversation about a piece of legislation, two, to ask questions about a piece of legislation, and, three, propose changes through an amendment process on the floor. When all of that is circumvented, that’s a problem.

This was not the first time Hough had voiced opposition to his party’s legislation by steamroller. He objected to shutting down debate at the end of the regular session in May on a bill repealing two issues voters had approved last year—protection of abortion rights and expansion of sick leave.

He called those actions and the special session experience “a dismantling of what the Senate is supposed to be.”

His party leader wasted no time dropping the axe. Less than half an hour after the session adjourned President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin went to Hough’s office and took away his appropriations committee chairmanship. He has been the vice chairman and then chairman since he came to the Senate six years ago.

She said, ‘we are tired of fighting with you. To which my response was, ‘did you fight with me this week, or did I just go out here and vote no on something that was handed down to the Missouri Senate and a bunch of elected members who are not allowed to talk?’

O’Laughlin assured Springfield television station KYTV there really aren’t any hard feelings involved.

“Every good business has a succession plan. We should not expect less for the Missouri Senate. Leadership on the budget includes not only planning expenditures, but being responsible for outcomes. Eight senators are terming out next year and that is a full 1/3 of the Republican caucus. Planning and executing those plans is a complicated process requiring constant work and oversight. In my view we need an appropriations chair who can get acclimated to the job before the turnover occurs. It has been my plan to appoint a chairman who can gain experience and continue on after the seats change next year. In my view this gives them the best chance of success.

Senior senators can help in this process prior to terming out. I implemented that plan yesterday and it is one I spoke to Senator Hough about last November. He is one of the most talented senators l’ve met and the change has nothing to do with votes as some have conjectured. Serving Missouri is not just about prestige but also about doing what is best for Missourians. I greatly appreciate Senator Hough and the immense amount of work he has performed on behalf of Missourians.

That might be true. Or it might be so much eyewash. Regardless, the optics—to use a phrase that has gained some purchase in our politics today—are pretty bad.  As for continuity, the vice chair of the committee is Chillicothe Senator Rusty Black, who is in his first Senate term and faces the voters for a second term next year. Three other Republican members of the appropriations committee are in their first terms and one other was just elected his second term last year. The committee also includes four Democrats, none of them eligible for committee leadership unless an unlikely switch of majority occurs. But committee members are hardly rookies and will have even more experience after the 2026 budget process.

Hough told The Missourinet O’Laughlin’s statement is “completely disingenuous,” noting that she had not replaced any of the other term-limited chairs of other Seante committees.

Here’s something else that speaks for the character of Lincoln Hough.  He has a picture of Harry Truman in a prominent place in his office.

He hasn’t done it because he’s some kind of a maverick. He’s done it because of the history of his office.

He put up the Truman picture after I saw David Balducchi’s article in the Missouri Historical Review in April, 2021 detailing Truman’s brief Missouri directorship of the National Reemployment Service. From October of 1933 until mid-May of 1934, Truman spent three days a week in Jefferson City where his office was in rooms 419A and 419B of the Capitol.

I took the article to Senator Hough’s office in those rooms and as soon as he read it, he set about getting a nice farmed picture of Truman with a note included in the frame noting Truman’s use of that space.

It was while Truman held that job that Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast offered him a chance to run for the U.S. Senate, a move some say Pendergast engineered because Truman had been too honest in his job as Jackson County Presiding Judge and Pendergast expected him to lose the Senate bid at the same time his administrative judgeship ran out so a Pendergast crony could be installed in the county position. Truman surprisingly won the first of his two terms before he became President.

It seems kind of appropriate that a portrait of a man who was too honest to suit his own party’s political boss in 1934 should be inhabited by a state senator today who had the courage to call out his party’s willingness to do the biddings of a President who acts as a political boss today.  Hough:

It’s pretty easy to pass legislation in the Missouri Senate if you don’t have to talk about it, and you can just bring it before the body and say, we’re not, we’re not going to have any discussion whatsoever. It seems that if you have any independent thought, or even just raise a question, you have a problem with this Republican Party and that is not the Republican Party that, 15 years ago when I first ran for the House, that I was part of.

There is a penalty sometimes for courage. Hough wasn’t told when he was fired as appropriations chairman if he is even still a committee member.

He lost a Republican primary bid for Lieutenant Governor last year.  I noticed on Facebook a few days after the session ended that someone thinks he’d be a good Congressman. At a time when President Trump’s support seems to be slipping within the Congress, a Republican such as Lincoln Hough, who has an independent streak, might be the kind of Republican the party needs for its future.

A Republican named Lincoln with a big picture of a Democrat named Harry in his office.

Those are pretty good optics.

 

Need Your Trash Hauled?

Posted on by
Reply

Maybe the Mayor of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois should not object so much to the President’s plan to  deploy National Guard troops to the Windy City.  Ditto folks in Memphis, the next American city in line to be invaded by the United Stats Army.

Based on the experience in Washington, D. C., the National Guard is making streets safer by picking up trash and doing gardening duties at national monument sites. One doesn’t want a tourist to trip over something or to be horrified by a wind-blown hot dog wrapper.

The National Guard reported during the Labor Day Weekend that its 2,000 troops had collected more than 500 bags of trash and cleaned more than 3.2 miles of roadways.

They’ve been doing a lot of the work that National Park Service workers would be doing if the Trump administration hadn’t fired thousands of them. One-fourth of the NPS workers were axed by enthusiastic DOGE-oriented actions. National Guard members, trained to fight on foreign battlefields and to serve in domestic disaster areas have instead helped with forty “beautification projects” in D.C.

Those National Guard troops also have disposed of three truckloads of plant waste.

It’s costing one-million dollars a day for the National Guard to serve as gardeners and garbage men in our nation’s capital.

As for fighting crime in one of the most crime-ridden cities in the world, there are a lot of places in the world, and even in red states with far higher crime rates than D.C.  Or Chicago. Or Los Angeles.

The Guard reports it made 1,369 arrests in the first three weeks including one guy who threw a sandwich at a member of the Guard. But Trump’s choice for the district’s prosecutor, former FOX news host Jeanne Priro, reportedly hasn’t been able to get a grand jury indictment in a couple of high-profile cases, not even against the deadly sandwich thrower.

Numerous studies indicate many more cities are more “entitled’ to National Guard protection (or                                       trash collection and gardening) than D. C., LA, or Chicago, based on crime. Many of them do not have Democrats as mayors so they apparently will just have to let the garbage pile up and let the weeds grow in their parks and around their monuments.

There’s a lesson here.  If you don’t want the president to order the National Guard to invade your town and pick up your trash or spread mulch in your beautified public places, elect a Republican mayor.

Too bad, though. Your high murder rate will stay high and your city will not be cleaner and more beautiful.

If you want your low murder rate to stay down, but you don’t want to hire extra people to clean up your streets and your parks so that the President will send inexperienced trash-hauling soldiers to do that, elect a Democrat, especially a black one.

It’s not about crime. It’s about cleanliness.

-0–0-

Sellout

Posted on by
Reply

The Missouri General Assembly has sold out the people of Missouri and more than two centuries of our heritage in following President Trump’s dictate on congressional elections.

The quick obedience of our legislature came less than a month after Trump issued a wholly unconstitutional rant on his social media page on August 18—

Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.

While we might have had other presidents who THOUGHT that, only Donald Trump has said so clearly and unmistakably that he is a dictator, the Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution be damned. He, he claims, can order states to do his bidding.

It is nothing short of a political tragedy that our Governor and our Missouri General Assembly have so unabashedly acknowledged that he is what he says he is and they will take orders from him, to the detriment of their constituents.

The legislative journals will be testimony for decades to come how completely the people from our home towns that we chose to represent us have sold out to a president who respects no bounds, including those of the United States Constitution, as well as forfeiting the rights of independence asserted by our State Constitutions for more than two centuries.

To be clear: What Trump and our legislature have done is NOT for the good of our country or our state. Their actions are an abdication by the majority of their oath of office to defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Missouri:

“I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Missouri, and faithfully perform the duties of my office……”

The attitude by legislators who have endorsed the Trump congressional district map raises serious questions whether the people in the House and the Senate that we elected to serve and to protect US have “faithfully performed” the duties of their office—which do not include following the dictates of a President of the United States who demands service only for the good of Donald J. Trump, a man either ignorant of the Constitution HE swore to uphold or who flagrantly ignores Section Four, which reserves the power to the states to regulate elections and the counting of votes and they in no way must do what the President tells them to do.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

The loophole in the language, however, does allow the legislature to carry out a President’s wishes and there’s nothing to stop a power-hungry President from telling the legislature to do his bidding and the majority of the legislative members can rationalize reasons for doing so—which they have done although the legislature is under no legal obligation to do so.

The legislature also has ignored the wording of every Missouri Constitution in the 204-year history of our state by agreeing Missouri, and other states “are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes.”

States are not agents. They are independent subdivisions and Missouri has repeatedly claimed that distinction. Article Ten of the Bill of Rights, often cited—especially by Republicans—establishes that:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Missouri has always firmly claimed those powers, beginning with our first constitution.

1820: “We, the people of Missouri, inhabiting the limits hereinafter designated, by our representatives in convention assembled, at St. Louis, on Monday the 12th day of June, 1820, do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent republic, by the name of ‘the State of Missouri;’ and for the government thereof, do ordain and establish this constitution.”

1865: Article 1, Section 5: That the people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering and abolishing their Constitution and form of government, whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right should be exercised in pursuance of law, and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.

1875:  BILL OF RIGHTS. In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles on which our government is founded, we declare-.

Section 1. Political power, origin of. —That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. [Same as Const. 1865, Art. 1, Sec. 4.]

Sec. 2. Internal affairs, regulation of. —That the people of this State have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their Constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness : Provided, Such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.  (same, in substance, as language from 1865 Constitution)

1945 Constitution: Bill of Rights:

Section 4. Independence of Missouri—submission of certain amendments to Constitution of the United States.—That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.

Free and Independent state?  Not anymore.  Not as long as a President can say “jump” and the Missouri legislature leaps.

How high would it leap?  Senator Lincoln Hough of Springfield is the answer. Hough has been a trusted figure among the Republican super majority. You don’t get much more trusted than by being put in charge of the committee that decided what gets how much of a $50 billion budget.

He and Senator Mike Moon of Ash Grove  voted against both the petition proposal and against Trump’s gerrymandered map.

Hough has told The Missouri Independent that Senate leader Cindy O’Laughlin within minutes of the vote removed him as the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee because he defied orders to vote for the petition and redistricting bills.

Hough told The Independent, “She said, ‘​w​e are tired of fighting with you.’  To which my response was, ‘did you fight with me this week, or did I just go out here and vote no on something that was handed down to the Missouri Senate and a bunch of elected members who are not allowed to talk?’”

“What I’ve seen at the end of last session, and what I saw this week, is a dismantling of what the Senate is supposed to be.”

The Senate as an institution nationally and in this state has always—until now—held itself to be the careful, deliberative chamber that allowed all voices to be heard, even if those voices tried to defeat or  modify legislation.  What happened in that chamber last week ended that important role in which one chamber of the Congress or of the legislature cooly evaluates the value and the honesty of legislation.

The Senate leadership, not even pretending to honor that tradition and that role in the system of government checks and balances that our nation’s creators gave us, destroyed that tradition. It twice voted to silence opposing voices and go straight to a vote, the outcome of which was guaranteed even with the two GOP defectors (Republicans control 2/3 of the seats in both chambers).

O’Laughlin several days ago fell back on the questionable excuse that the bills should be rammed through the special session to protect “Christian conservative values.” We are still waiting for her definition of them.

Whether the government should force Christian views—-or the perceived views of politicians who consider themselves Christians—on others seems clearly violative of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

The Pew Research Center recently released its survey on religion in Missouri, showing 62% of Missourians identify themselves as Protestant Christians. Catholic Christians represent 14%.  Historically Black Protestants make up five percent. Four percent of adults identify with other religions—Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindus and other world religions.

One-third of the responding adults say they are “nones,” religiously-unaffiliated. Five percent are atheists and eight percent are agnostic. “Nothing in particular” adds up to 20%.

If our legislature was interested in a representative congressional map, especially one based on those “Christian Conservative Values,” the map would be 5-3 Republican based on the perentages in the Pew study. Instead, it has caved to political greed and created a 7-1 map that does away with the only ordained Christian in our delegation and one of only of two active Christian ministers in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then it punished one of the caucus’s own members for taking a principled stand while the rest of his party colleagues sold out.

Whether it is a matter of religion or just raw politics, the Senate by its actions, got far under the covers with our President, and—in effect—endorsed his great desire to be a dictator.

Ultimately, these actions will reach the federal courts. Sadly, we no longer have confidence that the ultimate federal court will find our legislature’s bowing to a President seeking total power is far out of Constitutional bounds.

Some of the protestors at the Capitol when the House voted pointed to the state motto, “Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law.”  Pretty clearly, the legislature has chosen the welfare of Donald Trump as its priority.

You and I have been sold out by those closest to us that we trust to defend our freedoms from a President who wants to become a tyrant.

Remember those who have done this to us. Remember it next year when they ask for your vote.

We do still have the right to vote for our legislators.

For now.

Your Vote Won’t Mean a Thing OR it Might Mean Everything

Posted on by
Reply

—if the legislature passes a crazy initiative petition reform proposal suggested by Governor Kehoe.

Gerrymandering our congressional districts to eliminate one of our Democrat members of congress—because President Trump wants no congressional limits on his power—is not the only threat to our republican (small “r”) form of government on legislators’ desks in the special session.

It is widely recognized that the petition process by which citizens can demand a new law be passed (because the legislature won’t pass it) has its problems and it has its perils that arise from mass expenditures of money to, in effect, buy part of our Missouri Constitution or part of our state statutes.

But a proposal that means 7/8 of Missouri’s voters’ ballots will have no meaning whatsoever is simply absurd.

The governor wants a law passed that says any proposal put on the ballot by citizen petition not only must achieve a majority to pass, it must get a majority in every one of our eight congressional districts.

One of the problems with the current process is that votes in our heavily-Democratic metropolitan areas have been enough at times to pass a proposal opposed throughout the rest of the state.

Governor Kehoe did not address that issue in announcing his recommendation in issuing the call for the special session. He said, “For far too long, Missouri’s Constitution has been the victim of out-of-state special interests who deceive voters to pass out-of-touch policies.  It’s time we give voters a chance to protect our Constitution.”

The answer to this problem is NOT, however, in killing a sacred part of this country—majority rule.

If Governor Kehoe’s idea had been in effect last year, we would not have sports wagering coming to Missouri regardless of how many millions of dollars the gambling interests spent. You’ll recall that the industry spent more than $40 million to get its petition issue passed by 3,000 votes. The industry fits like a glove the governor’s description of “out-of-state special interests who deceive voters.”

The proposal lost in three counties that have casinos—Lewis, Cooper, and Cape Girardeau. It carried in the metro areas that have casinos by tens of thousands of votes. Only one outstate county with a casino—Pemiscot—approved, but by only about 340 votes. It failed not in just one congressional district but probably in five (we haven’t seen a breakout according to district but the county-by-county plus St. Louis and Kansas City totals are available).

This is a ridiculously BAD idea.  Under this idea, a petition-proposed law or amendment could pass in seven of our congressional districts but fail by a single vote in the eighth. That single vote would negate every other vote in every other part of the state.

The proposal deals with a problem that is largely of the legislature’s own doing. By refusing to pass bills that have significant public support, our lawmakers are clearing the way for citizen petition campaigns. Sports gambling is the biggest and most recent such failure. The refusal to pass a law has led the gambling to put sports wagering in the Constitution and therefore make in extremely hard to deal with the problems this new form of gambling cause by changing a law. If it’s in the constitution, correction is manifoldly more difficult.

Here’s something else that’s kind of tragic—

This proposed law does not require a public vote.  You and I will have no right to vote on whether the state should be able to take away our votes, even if we are in the majority, at least not as the proposal is now written.

Law by petition has its problems.

Such laws do not go through the rigorous examination and refining process of legislative procedure. That can be frustrating for those hoping for a change in something. But writing a law that says specifically what it is meant to say, no more and no less,  is a finely-developed talent. Once it is written, it goes through committee hearings where shortcomings can be highlighted and corrected. Then in each chamber of the legislature, it goes through a “perfecting” process that again can be a rigorous review before it is finally passed.

But that doesn’t mean the right of petition given us by our ancestors more than a century ago should be rendered meaningless by this proposal.

The system does need some careful tweaks, but not surgery by meat cleaver. One tweak is a requirement that entities wanting to put a petition issue on the ballot should file only one version of the proposal with the Secretary of State whose elections staff spends time reviewing for correctness.

The Secretary of State’s web page has numbers that dramatically point to the problem. Last year, 174 petitions were filed. Nine were rejected, 24 were withdrawn, and 139 were approved for circulation. Only four were submitted with signatures and put on the ballot. Four out of 174. Large numbers were slightly different versions of the same matter. But each required review by the Secretary of State staff.

A law saying a group gets one shot would be helpful. If there are problems, then the group can submit a better proposal. But the shotgun approach needs to stop.

Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has some ideas about improving the process:

Limit abuse of process, by instituting modest filing fees and banning duplicate or near-duplicate submissions.

Ensure broad geographic support, strengthening the constitutional “district distribution” requirement so that petitions reflect statewide, not concentrated, backing.

Ban foreign or out-of-state fundraising, and stiffen penalties for fraudulent signatures or circulator misrepresentations.

Increase transparency, with public comment periods and clear, plain-language explanations available before signature gathering begins.

Generally, these aren’t bad ideas although the funding ban might be a little shaky because of  First Amendment speech problems and whether limits on raising the money to do the speaking infringes on the right to petition by groups who say they can’t enjoy that right unless they can raise money from whatever source.

The secretary’s idea, however, of allowing one congressional district to be, in effect, a killing entity that makes votes in all of  the other districts meaningless is simply undemocratic.

These are statewide issues and the votes from throughout the state mean something today. But they won’t tomorrow if this proposal passes. “Broad geographic support” sounds good. But it’s shorthand for “forget majority rule.”

Missourians already have given up their right to vote. Twice. First, it was term limits that means we have no right to vote for a lawmaker who has served us well and that we would like to represent us for more than eight years. Second is the adopted initiative petition proposal requiring votes every five years in Kansas City and St. Louis on whether to continue their earnings taxes. One provision of that issue says none of our other cities can ever ask voters to approve a similar tax for their city. Proposals might not pass, but we have a law—again, submitted by initiative petition—that says we can’t even vote on it.

Now we are being asked to approve an idea that says a statewide majority is useless if one-eighth of the state, by as little as one vote, can wipe out the votes of everybody else.

The governor’s plan doesn’t take onerous amounts of money out of the process. Doing so has to be through a way around First Amendment protections of free speech and right to petition. Nobody has figured out how to do that in a way that the court system will buy.

A undemocratic proposal that says votes from 7/8 of our state can be rendered meaningless by the barest of majorities opposed in one district is just plain wrong.

Suppose we applied the idea to legislative races saying no one can be elected to the House or the Senate if one precinct in their district fails to give them a majority. That’s “broad geographic support” brought home to roost.

If they’re not willing to put themselves in that predicament, they shouldn’t put everybody else in the state in it.

 

A REALLY Special Session

Posted on by
Reply

Our lawmakers are back in Jefferson City to help decide what kind of a country we will have, and what kind of country we will be. That’s a pretty strong observation. But if we are honest, it is also pretty strongly true.

Governor Kehoe has called them back because President Trump worries he won’t have continued absolute power for the last half of his term unless legislatures in various states take unprecedented action to change congressional district lines to eliminate Democrats.

Forget what the voters decided in the 2024 Congressional elections. Make sure some of them can’t have the representative they elected because a President who brags about his popularity is worried that, in truth, he is so unpopular in poll after poll that Americans might vote in 2026 to impede his seizure of absolute power.

The Missouri legislature wants to take Representative Emanuel Cleaver’s elected job away from him by splitting his district so about half of his biggest supporters can’t vote for him in 2026.

It is interesting that Republicans, who have so many chest-thumping evangelical Christians supporting them, want to eliminate a member of Congress who is a Christian minister. Perhaps Emanuel Cleaver isn’t Christian enough. Perhaps they think he is spiritually lost or spiritually bankrupt because he’s a Methodist, a mainline Christian group that has split in a dispute about whether God creates gays.

Wouldn’t you think that a president who peddles Bibles, poses holding a Bible in front of a D. C. church, and says in commercials that he has several Bibles and it’s his favorite book would want someone like Congressman Cleaver in Washington as a moral force?

That’s Trump’s problem. He is not a moral force himself. In fact, there are plenty who wonder if he has any morals at all.

Donald Trump, who is so scared of losing power that he will disrupt the entire system of picking a representative government, wants the legislature to just turn over the keys to the democratic process in Missouri to him.

He talks about American exceptionalism but cares not for the government system that gives us that distinction and he will do anything to make sure his power goes unchecked for as long as he and his political offspring can keep it.

Have the people of Missouri asked for this change in who represents them?

No.  There has been no public outcry that our congressional delegation has betrayed the people who elected it. But those we have chosen to represent us at the state level are facing a demand that the legislature go against its own public’s wishes so Missouri can help keep a man in power who day after day advances policies that are antithetical to a heritage that millions have lived and died to defend and to perfect.

Now we have the spectacle of our chosen state representatives and our chosen state senators meeting to undermine our representatives in the national government that we voted to support less than one year ago, and in the process throw out a Black Methodist minister who has served our state with great honor and decency in Washington since January 3, 2005, a man dedicated to public service in the pulpit as well as in the places of power—a dozen years on the city council in our largest city, eight years as its mayor, and more than two decades representing Christian values and his district’s needs.

He rightfully threatens to fight this ill-conceived realignment in court: “It will render people in Kansas City essentially silent and powerless,” Cleaver said. “The reason I’m saying this is Kansas City is roughly 70-something percent Democratic. If you tear Kansas City apart — put one portion of the Kansas City area in one district, the other in another — the chances are they have no representation.”

He is correct although today’s majority party does not seem to care.

What hammer does Donald Trump hold over our lawmakers that makes them so craven in doing his bidding? It’s a big one. It’s the power to withhold or even take back the billions of dollars in federal funding that underwrite about half of the state budget.

It is awfully hard to look down the barrel of that gun and not wilt. Trump wants no defiance from Missouri and from other Republican states. He and those who are pulling his strings daily prove they care not one whit for most of us but expects our voices in government at state and federal levels to say only two words: “Yes, sir.”

Some key questions emerge: Is there time to make all of this happen?  Can opponents drag out the special session before the bill passes and the court battles begin and how long will that process take before it clears state courts and goes through the federal court system, which will take even more time?

When will filing for these offices begin if this issue is tied up in courts?  Candidates cannot file in districts that will not legally exist until the courts rule which map will be THE map. When will primary elections be held, ditto? When will lawsuits challenging the results begin and be processed? Will the court fights be  done  before time for a November election?

This is going to be a long and ugly process that will do nothing to improves public confidence in Missouri’s, and the nation’s, government.

One man wants to take away one of our members of Congress with a new map THAT IS UNLIKELY TO BE PUT OUT FOR VOTER APROVAL before an election is held specifically to oust a congressman who has been elected eleven times by people in a district that Trump wants the Missouri legislature to destroy.

Here is the final question:

How much does the Missouri General Assembly want to disgrace itself for a man who has been considered by almost 150 of the nation’s most distinguished historians one of the worst presidents in history—-eve before he started swinging a sledgehammer in his second term.

Despite the words of a long-ago popular song, Freedom IS a word for everything to lose.

Our legislators will tell us at the end of this special session if they think it is, as the song also says, “just another word.”

T&P

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve been thinking more about this “thoughts and prayers” thing and we decided to look up a time when a political leader offered more than a trite phrase.

Abraham Lincoln’s letter to the Widow Bixby is considered a classic although it is surrounded by controversy. The supposedly had lost five sons in the Civil War (she lost three) and there is considerable evidence the letter was written by Lincoln’s Secretary John Hay. The original does not exist.

“I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which would attempt to beguile  you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming,” the letter said. “But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly father assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.”

Thoughts, yes he had them for her. Prayers, yes, that she be comforted.

The letter is noted for its sincerity, its realness, its tenderness. It is a stark contrast to the cold thoughts and prayers message that has been sucked dry by repeated use after repeated tragedies.

There are many versions of an old saying and many reported originators of it.  But it is useful for us to ponder it today in light of the defense by some prominent Republicans that “thoughts and prayers” is somehow adequate, even sacred.   The operative quotation that applies to this phrase is, “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made.”

Substitute  “piety” for “success” in this instance and you’ve nailed their defense for mouthing words but showing no interest in doing anything meaningful to those who are suffering, have suffered, or will suffer.

Here’s the thing about “thoughts and prayers:”

The phrase has been used so often that it long ago lost any personal sincerity.  The people who fall back on this hackneyed expression have well-paid public relations staffers who surely could come up with something far better and more personal than the cold, tired, “thoughts and prayers” thing.

Using it is fake sincerity and suggests the people who have fallen back on it don’t really feel sorry for those who are suffering. The fact that there’s no follow-up action or even discussion of what can be done to combat repeated tragedies renders T&P even more hollow, even more nothing but fake sincerity. Put out the statement and then move on.

Making things even worse are the political attacks on those such as Psaki who come right out and describe what the statement really is.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had a typical response: “It’s incredible to me that Jen Psaki, Gavin Newsom and others would attack religion, diminish the faith of millions of Americans at a time of such great tragedy. There are a lot of common-sense things that can be done to protect children at school. This is not a time to politicize these issues.”

The National Rifle Association has had absolutely nothing to say but former Congressman Trey Gowdy, a favorite of the NRA when he was in the Congress told his FOX News viewers, “The only thing that can give us any modicum of peace at all, is those two children are with the person who loved them the very most, the person who created them, that being Jesus.”

At least he didn’t say thoughts and prayers. We wonder if his “us” includes the parents of the dead children or their classmates, or the children of families, wounded or unharmed except for the emotional damage of the event. Right now the idea that the two children are with “the person who loved them the very most” doesn’t mean much to the parents who loved them more than anybody in this life.

This is where Johnson and the others who have turned the overdue discussion about sincerity into a personal attack have it all wrong. Psaki wasn’t disrespecting religion or anyone’s faith. If anything she was challenging those who loudly proclaim their piety but do not demonstrate it in their actions. Her comments seem rooted in the admonition from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”

Thoughts and prayers has become the “resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”  And assurances that their children are now with Jesus likely has limited comfort value to their parents. Pious assurances don’t go any farther than worn-out standard responses.

T&P and pious assurances are condescending at a time when condescension means little or less.

The Hill, a D.C. political newsletter quoted a national Democratic strategist who said last weekend,  “On this, Republicans are trying to own the space of faith just like they do patriotism. Scripture says faith without works is dead. The difference between us and them is we follow our thoughts and prayers up with action and they do not.”

Whether the Democrats follow through is questionable given the paltry record of really meaningful accomplishment, but Johnson was correct when he said, “This is not a time to politicize these issues.” It is, instead, a time for a meaningful reaction that seeks to help. There are plenty of people in times such as this who think, “Is that all they have to offer?”

Unfortunately, for Johnson and his cohorts including Tulsi Gabbard who charged Psaki is not someone who believes in God or His love, that IS all they have to offer. And to be honest, Democrats have very little to justify crowing.

Faith without action.  Professed faith without action. Clang, Clang, Clang.

Once you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made.

There was nothing fake about the shootings and the deaths and Jen Psaki’s reaction. It’s clear where and who  the fakes are.

The Theory

Posted on by
1

Moderator: I was looking at one of Wylie Miller’s “Non Sequitur” comics the other day it inspired me. Look at this:

So we’re going to play a game called Conspiracy Theory.  Let’s make one up, right here.  All five of us around this table.  Each of us contributes one “fact” with the next person building on that “fact” until we have a theory we can float out there.

Person One: How about this? Donald Trump isn’t the real President.

Person Two:  He did win the office in an election, but—

Person Three: He’s just a figurehead!

Moderator: Wait a minute.  Figurehead?

Person Four: I think I agree. Yeah, he’s just the guy out front but somebody else is really pulling his strings.  Think of all the times he has said, “I don’t know” when he’s been asked questions by the press. And just recently when somebody asked him who stopped arms shipments to Ukraine, he said, “I don’t know. You tell me.”  We need to point a finger at someone we can pass off as the string-puller.

Person One:  Hmmm.  Why don’t we “suggest” it’s Stephen Miller?

Moderator: Wow!  That’s an interesting road to go down. How can we cook up something to explain that?

Person Two: Well, what about we say that Miller is dreaming up all of this deportation business.  I mean, he recently tried to explain how much better the country would be if we got rid of all of the immigrants. Like, “You would be able to see a doctor in an emergency room right away.” He was talking about how Los Angeles would be better but aren’t there emergency rooms all over the country that would be better off if we didn’t have immigrants falling off of roofs or burning themselves in a Mexican restaurant kitchen, or having a heart attack while picking lettuce on a 110-degree day? Stuff like that.

Person Three: Y’know, he also talked about schools. He said, “Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with.”

Person Four: And he also said “Classrooms would be half the size. Students who have special needs would get all the attention that they needed.” Of course, all of this was being said about the same time the administration was withholding tons of money for summer programs and other school things.

Person Two: Do you think his immigration talk was just a smokescreen to distract attention from the school forecasting?

Person Four: Interesting suggestion.

Moderator:  All of the claims are provable nonsense, of course. And here in Missouri, a lot of school funding is based on attendance numbers so that might mean LESS money for Missouri schools if there are fewer students.

Person One: And don’t forget: “There would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug deaths.”

Person Three: None?

Person One: That’s what he said.

Moderator: Thanks for mentioning that. It sure sounds like the kind of stuff Trump actually has said.  It’s also not true, but truth and conspiracy theories are incompatible. So, we need to make sure we say this thing about Miller often enough that people will think, “If they keep saying it, it has to be right.”

Person Two:  Those things do sound like stuff he might cook up to feed Trump to say during one of his cabinet meetings or maybe during a graduation speech somewhere.  Trump does like to be given a fact that he can blow up into a major talking point even if he doesn’t know what the fact is all about—-and then keep repeating it during his interminable public speeches.

Person Three: Speaking of feeding Trump things.  D’you think he really reads the executive orders he signs?  I don’t. Somebody announces what the thing is about and then gives it to Trump who signs the document, holds it up for the photo ops, then waits for somebody to tell him what’s in the next one. Somebody else clearly writes the things—the spelling and capitalization are all properly done and I haven’t heard yet that any of them end with MAGA!

Person One: And there are so many of them!  You can’t tell me that he personally signs all of them. We just see the ones he does on television. Why don’t we suggest the Trump autopen is in Miller’s office?

Person Four:  Good point. I’ve got another one. His speeches. He reads his prepared remarks as if he hasn’t seen them before and then goes off-script with some whoppers in his usual style for several minutes and then might drift back to the prepared remarks.  It must drive people like Miller crazy when he goes off the reservation like that. But we can make the case that he doesn’t sound like he knows what he’s talking about when he’s on-script because he’s just mouthing words provided by Miller until he thinks he can make the point better if he mixes it in with ad-libbed revenge language or something.

Person One: You’re right. The prepared stuff sounds too rational to be Trump’s real words and when he reads it off the teleprompter it sounds as if he’s never seen it before. It’s not until he goes off on a tangent that we get the real Trump and that makes people forget what somebody prepared for him. I think that makes our theory stronger.

Person Two: Hold on a minute. We’re kind of drifting away from creating a well-rounded theory here.  Let me suggest this: Stephen Miller actually runs Donald Trump.

Person Four: Could we suggest he’s a shape shifter and he actually IS Donald Trump?

Person One: That’s over the edge, I think—although people who dress up as Wookies might believe it.

Person Three: Getting back to our point. Maybe we can suggest it’s the kind of stuff that Trump will embellish to even more outlandish dimensions in his speeches or cabinet meetings, which will let the media think he’s the one most loudly pushing this stuff.

Person Four:  But we say he’s not, that the main thing he’s interested in is becoming wealthier so he lets Miller run the presidency and create quotes while Trump cooks up new ways to make more money

Person Two: And playing golf.

Person Four: And playing golf.  AND getting a gift airplane he can repaint to look like Air Force One and take it home as a souvenir when he leaves office.

Moderator: We’re drifting off topic again, folks. Let’s get back to the Trump-as-front-man for Miller theory.

Person Two: What else do we have?

Person Three: Well, there’s Jeffrey Epstein and Vladimir Putin.

Moderator: That’s an interesting pairing. But I think that’s going to take some work before we put it out there.  Remember, Trump has been accusing Ukraine of starting that war and he browbeat Zelinsky during that Oval Office embarrassment and now Trump has figured out that Putin doesn’t care what he says.  We need to spend some time figuring out how Miller can be behind that.

Person Three: How about Epstein?

Person Two: Oh, Lord, I’m not sure we can add anything to that mess. Let’s leave that to Glenn Beck. He has five theories and we don’t want to crowd the field. He’s creative enough to handle that himself and we should let nature take its course on that one. If there are a half-dozen conspiracy theories around, things will be confused enough that MAGA people can take their picks.

Sooner or later that drawing of the woman is going to leak out, if there really is one. However, even without that, we do know that Trump has used his magic marker to draw things for auctions as well as for things other than signing executive orders and re-drawing weather maps. So he and his marker are certainly capable of a lot of things. But we need to talk more about that.

Moderator: Listen, we shouldn’t get too complicated with our theory.  The best conspiracy theory is a simple one that susceptible minds—the gullible idiots—can easily latch onto. We don’t want to get over the heads of those people.

Person One: That’s a good point. Why don’t we just go out there with the “Trump is just a front man” theory. The mainline media will pummel that possum flat and the Trumpers will deny it. But a few of them might think, “Maybe there’s something there.” We use this as our first theory to weaken the obsessive support Trump has from a lot of people and then we flesh out some of the other things we’ve kicked around or that might come up.

Person Two: We could do a lot with swollen ankles, you know.

Person Three:  Oooh, great idea.  Maybe we can suggest that problems with blood flow to his legs can be an indication of problems with blood flow to the brain.

Person Four: What makes you think that would work?  The medical profession probably wouldn’t support it?

Person One: I think it COULD work. With RFK Jr., running the country’s health agency, a lot of the public might buy the brain vein idea and probably some other theory we can develop—like Trump wearing a catheter. That could be a good one, too.

Person Two: What could we do with his bald spot?

Moderator (ignoring Peron Two): Okay, I think we need to stop before we go farther off the deep end. We’ve come up with some great ideas. Let’s get together in the next few days and polish our first one before we send it to MSNBC where Rachel and Chris can spend a week or more developing it for us.  We probably should make sure FOX hears about it, too, so they can interview Trump whose denials and threats will only add credence to our theory.

Person Four: Don’t forget to give it to One America and Newsmax. They won’t be able to ignore it and we’ll get even more exposure when they call it a hoax.

Moderator: Now, listen.  You raised the issue of threats. We have to be careful so that nobody knows where this came from. We don’t want to get sued by Trump. Of course, we don’t have nearly enough money to make it worth his while but that doesn’t stop him.  We’re just innocent private citizens having a little fun at his expense.

Person Two: You know, of course, that we wouldn’t have to worry about such things if Trump had a sense of humor.

Moderator: Yeah.  Well…….

(Non Sequitur by Wylie Miller is distributed by Andrews McMeal syndicate.)

-0-

Be Careful What You Wish For 

Posted on by
Reply

It’s an old idiom with several variations but it has a currency in today’s politics as some states are hopping to President Trump’s demands to redraw congressional districts so a cooperative Republican majority will not offer any checks or balances to his policies throughout the rest of his term.

Republican friends, you would be well-advised to tread carefully into this Trumpswamp.

We have witnessed numerous lawsuits stemming from the seven redistrictings we have covered or observed. The authors of the realigned districts always deny they have gerrymandered districts either to protect an incumbent or to oust an incumbent the majority party wants to target.

But this is different. The President has specifically asked legislatures to gerrymander districts to make sure more Republicans are elected to the U. S. House in 2026. He has a small and shrinking majority there now and he is seeing some ferment within his MAGAites and his response is not to correct any of his own behaviors but to ask state legislatures to make sure he doesn’t have to.

Some leaders of the Missouri legislature would not be surprised if Governor Kehoe calls a special session to redraw our congressional districts to oust one of our two Democrat members of the House, in this case the Rev. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City, one of our senior congressmen.

They tried to do that once before, putting him in what I called a “dead lizard” district (because its outline looked like a dead lizard, lying on its back with its feet up) that stretched as far east as Marshall, thus putting more rural conservative voters in play. But the legislature made a mistake by letting him keep too many of his Kansas City constituents and he won anyway.  It is unlikely the legislature will make that same mistake this time.

In the past, legislators accused in lawsuits of gerrymandering denied doing so intentionally, forcing critics to prove their defenses untrue.  This time, however, there will be no denying intentional gerrymandering; the President has ordered it.

It will be blatantly intentional, therefore harder to defend.

There are other issues in play, too. They must consider whether they are enacting a boomerang.

First, there is the question of the population basis for the new plan. Trump wants a new census that can be used in apportionment. That’s a reason to delay redrawing the lines. His desire to exclude some people in that census will draw lawsuits. More delay.

Why, therefore, the rush?  No census. No determination of the census’s legality. How can the numbers used to calculate new districts be accurate without that census and the determination of its constitutionality?

Whether the districts will exist a year from now, in the 2026 election cycle, depends on the court attacks on the plan—and there will be attacks. The timing of the challenges, the hearings, the appeals, the appeals hearings, the rulings and the appeals to an even higher level will chew up a lot of time.  The legislature can approve the plan. But whether it will withstand vigorous court challenges on numerous fronts from the accuracy of population numbers as well as the overt partisanship behind it is uncertain. Whether opponents can run out the clock on the plan also is uncertain.

It also is possible that Trump’s continued misadventures politically, legislatively, socially, and judicially will have further inflamed his existing and his new critics by election time in ’26 and voters will take it out on Republicans generally and the Republican running to oust an incumbent Democrat in particular.

If this plan goes into effect, Democrats can launch numerous attacks and use it to put forward attractive candidates than will have a significant ready-made issue to make a strong run at Republicans. It could backfire.  Some concerns already are being heard in the GOP ranks.

Sometimes it is better to let incumbent dogs lie (read that how you prefer) than it is to stir up a public that is capable of switching to the other party on election day. Experience shows that the public is a fickle creature.

It’s a risk/reward situation for Republicans no matter how they cut it. They should consider the potential hazards of getting what they wish for because they easily could get what they don’t desire, especially if Trump continues in the next year to alienate his base and Americans generally with his Big Ugly Bill and subsequent actions and legal problems.

Present trends seem to indicate his behavior is doing potentially prospective Republican candidates no service, something incumbents might consider as they ponder their own futures. Is he worth the risk in which they might be placing themselves?  And if they decide he isn’t, will they have the courage to stand up?

Rigging the Election

Posted on by
Reply

A normally sane person might think that a person who has claimed a rigged election is wrong would be reluctant to try to rig one himself.

But we are living in Trumpworld.

President Trump wants red states such as Missouri to adjust their congressional districts so more Republicans might be elected next year. A president’s party historically loses congressional seats in midterm elections and Trump and his party don’t have any seats he can spare.).

Texas Republicans have jumped at the opportunity to make the master happy although the GOP already dominates the state’s delegation in the U. S. House of Representatives 27-12.  That’s not good enough for Trump. The effort has led to a confrontation with their Democratic colleagues that has become, our mind at least, a national embarrassment for Texas politics and politicians.

What’s going on here?  Trump is scared.  Of what?  National Review correspondent Audrey Fahlberg said recently on CNN, “The White House is driving this because clearly they are worried about losing the midterms.  They’re convinced that if House Democrats flip the House, that Trump is going to get impeached again…The ‘big beautiful bill’ is not polling super well right now, so they’re going on offense here. They’re driving this into motion in Texas. They’re looking at other states, as well. We may see this continue in states like Florida, Indiana.”

And Missouri appears likely to get into this, too. Republicans have six of our eight House seats but apparently that’s not enough. Senate leader Cindy O’Laughlin has told the Missouri Independent that it is “likely” the governor will call a special session to redraw lines so Republicans would be likely to take away the seat held by one of our senior members, the Reverend Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City. He’s one of two Missouri African-Americans in our congressional delegation.

Missouri is not out of whack in the D/R balance of our congressional districts.  Last year, President Trump got 58 percent of the popular vote in Missouri. Kamala Harris and minor candidates got 42 percent.  A 6-2 congressional breakdown fits those results.

The Missouri legislature is more than 2-1 Republican so a walkout by Democrats similar to the Texas walkout wouldn’t stop the GOP from aiding and abetting Trump’s need to have a pliant Congress. The Missouri House Minority Leader, Ashley Aune of Kansas City, has told the Independent, “Everyone I’ve talked to, especially on my side of the aisle, expects to go down and get steamrolled…during a special session.”

In about a month, legislators will reconvene to consider overriding any vetoes dispensed by Governor Kehoe after the regular session and a special  session could meet concurrently with that veto session. It’s been done a few times before.

We can anticipate one of the arguments opponents will make. Our state constitution’s Article III, Section 45 says:

 When the number of representatives to which the state is entitled in the House of the Congress of the United States under the census of 1950 and each census thereafter is certified to the governor, the general assembly shall by law divide the state into districts corresponding with the number of representatives to which it is entitled, which districts shall be composed of contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be.

The average citizen is likely to think this language is clear—the state constitution provides for redistricting after each census but has no authorization for redistricting midway through a census decade. The language about “contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be” has been used from time to time to challenge redistricting plans that critics think wander too far from “contiguous” and “compact.”

Missouri has revised congressional district maps after the decennial census is taken beginning, as noted in the language, after the 1950 census. The only time the legislature redistricted between census counts was in the 1960s with a case that went to the United States Supreme Court that ruled against a redistricting map. A key part of the ruling said:

Missouri contends that variances were necessary to avoid fragmenting areas with distinct economic and social interests and thereby diluting the effective representation of those interests in Congress. But to accept population variances, large or small, in order to create districts with specific interest orientations is antithetical to the basic premise of the constitutional command to provide equal representation for equal numbers of people. “[N]either history alone, nor economic or other sorts of group interests, are permissible factors in attempting to justify disparities from population-based representation. Citizens, not history or economic interests, cast votes.”

If we understand Trump’s demands, he wants the Missouri legislature to create “districts with specific interest orientations.” The U. S. Supreme Court is much different than it was in the sixties so we’ll have to see if this precedent carries any weight with today’s Trump-dominated court.

Not all Missouri Republicans are in lock step with Trump. One is Senator Mike Moon of Ash Grove, a member of the so-called Freedom Caucus, a minority group within the Republican Party that took control of the chamber and blocked action on hundreds of bills in the last three years. Another is the Speaker Pro Tem of the House, Chad Perkins of Bowling Green who worries that “a 7-1 map is easily a 5-3 map in a year that doesn’t go the way that conservatives want it to go.”

Perkins also makes the point that Democrats should not moan and wail too loudly about Republican attempts to hold their advantage by changing districts in the middle of a decade because the Democrats in Illinois and California are doing the same thing to gain an advantage to offset any pick-ups Trump might make in other states.

The latest wrinkle in the planned rigging is Trump’s order for his Commerce Department to run a new census that does not include undocumented immigrants, the U. S. Constitution notwithstanding.

Article I, Section 2 does not seem to allow what Trump demands, at least for your observer’s untutored reading.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. 

The Constitution recognizes the census taken every ten years as the only legitimate census. By including “the whole number of free persons,” it does not exempt immigrants, which at the time the Constitution was written was a considerable number. Indians were not counted (although they were probably the freest people in the nation’s history until the Europeans showed up). Slaves WERE counted but since they were not free they were considered only three-fifths of a person—a provision the southern states demanded so representation would be balanced with states in the north.

And the article says the only census that will be constitutionally recognized is the one done every ten years.

Trump’s order is not helpful to his demand that new congressional districts be drawn. Right now. The first part of Amendment 1, section 2 says the districts will be drawn based on census figures.  The census has to come first, then the districts, a constitutional provision that seems to say Texas is jumping the gun and Missouri would be doing the same. Doing a census the way Trump wants it done could be pretty difficult and time consuming because a lot of Latino people whether here legally or illegally are making themselves as scarce as possible.

To coin a phrase, Trump seems to be engaged in unconstitutional bundling.

Trump’s political cynicism does nothing to reduce the general public’s distrust of our political system. In fact, he has played upon it to get elected.

Politics sometimes has been a mud-and-blood-and beer wrestling match although not as untrustworthy as many see it today. Some observers have suggested this state of decline began with Ronald Reagan’s inaugural remark 44 years ago that, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem.”

Reagan had it right but he sure didn’t foresee the much different way the statement is true today.

The central issue in this frantic competition to diminish a minority within a state’s congressional delegation is this:

We have a President and a GOP House and Senate that recognize their statements and their actions are counter to the public’s increasingly self-recognized best interests. They are uncertain that the public, if given the chance, will let them keep doing to the country and its people the things they are doing.

Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress had the answer many of today’s  politicians want to ignore:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read that last sentence again.  When a despotic government becomes destructive of the inalienable rights of citizens like you and me, WE have the RESPONSIBILITY to resist and to form a new government that provides for our “future security.” The Trump bunch is afraid the people might want to do that now that the see that Trump was less than honest (to put it mildly) in his campaign.

Too many in today’s politics care less about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than they care about power, especially power that can be abused to benefit the few by harming the many. Re-drawing congressional district lines by those focused on power more than on the government our forefathers imagined helps assure that the people have reduced chances for benefitting from their inalienable rights.

There is an odor of desperation in the air on the part of those who believe in power above service as they see public sentiment for them weaken.

The redistricting game is being played by people who have come to believe they cannot win if they do not rig next year’s elections for Congress—-and they’re flouting their ambitions right before our eyes when they consider a mid-term re-drawing of congressional district lines based on ignoring counting “the whole people” to protect a President who now seems far less confident in his future than he did six months ago.

They might be imperiling themselves if they proceed, these legislators, as we will discuss in our next entry.