As of this afternoon at least 26 senators had signed a leter urging the Susan B. Komen Foundation for the Cure to reverse its decision to stop grants to Planned Parenthood. And guess what? Claire McCaskill is one of the latest signatories. It's a pretty blunt letter - here's a sample of its message:
It would be tragic if any woman - let alone thousands of women - lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.
We earnestly hope that you will put women's health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision for the sake of the women who depend on both your organizations for access to the health care they need.
Greg Sargent has the full text here. Maybe McCaskill deserves some thanks? If you want to give her some positive reinforcement, something all pols need from time to time, here's her email contact form.
I've got to admit, unenthusiastic though I often am on the topic of McCaskill, that when it comes to women's reproductive choice, she's been pretty consistently good (unless you know something I don't). In her most recent pitch for contributions, she even touts her support for "a woman's right to access birth control, including the morning after pill." For a politician who seems to be generally adverse to controversy, to support making the morning after pill available means crawling out several shaky inches on the pro-choice limb the crazies are trying really hard to break off. Give credit where it's due, I say.
On good authority (here, here and here), it seems that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) has a tax fairness bill, dubbed the Buffet Rule Bill, ready to go. Word has it that it's easy - requires no fiddling with the tax code - and could be ready to go right away:
The bill would ensure that taxpayers who make over $1 million would pay at least a 30 percent tax rate on all their income, Whitehouse aides say. It would do this by requiring millionaires to calculate their overall effective tax rate under the regular system - by taking into account all their sources of income and the various rates they are taxed at.
Those taxpayers whose effective rate is under 30 pecent would be required to pay taxes on all their income at the 30 percent rate. (Charitable contributions that are deductible under the current system would be exempt from income calculations.)
For our local purposes, it's important to note that Whitehouse plans to try to start the action right away:
Mr. Whitehouse said he had the support of at least two other Democrats on the bill. He planned to announce other names later on Monday, and more names will come after the nonpartisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation releases an official number for the amount of revenue the bill would raise. That "score" was requested by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, both Democrats.
Seems to me we need to do whatever we can to make sure that Claire McCaskill comes out as one of the prominent supporters - it could even be put to her as a litmus test. At the very least, good Missouri progressives need to start lobbying our entire Missouri contingent - Roy Blunt et al. - to support the Senate bill and something similar in the House. We need to know who's willing to stand up for fairness and who wants to continue forcing the American middle class to subsidize the Mitt Romneys of the world. Their position on the Buffett Bill will present a clear-as-day picture of where they all stand so we must impress upon them that they need to put up or shut up, the sooner the better.
And by shut up, I mean we need to be ready to huff and puff and blow down the house of cards that the GOP has been building to showcase their lame response to calls for tax fairness: class warfare is bad, they say, except when it's waged by the Rex Sinquefields of the world; God save us from the politics of envy when it might embarrass Mitt Romney and pals; free speech is good when it equates to big bucks from corporations and the rest of us only indulge when we're in "quiet rooms." Then there's the all time GOP favorite claim that deficits can only be fixed cutting by benefits to the 99% which are mostly paid for by the 99%, while subsidies for the corporations and the 1% are to die for. Or, to consider another variant, raising taxes on the 1% might make those rich folks so angry that they won't create any jobs in the good ol; U.S. of A. - especially since their purchased pols have ensured that we play by rules that make really easy for them to take advantage of slave labor abroad.
But to get back to the more immediate issue - here's how you contact Claire McCaskill to ask her to work for us: 506 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510;
Phone: (202) 224-6154; Web Contact Form: here
Don't let Roy Blunt off the hook: 260 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC, 20510;
Phone: (202) 224-5721;
Web Contact Form: here
UPDATE: There are some indications that it's a good time to hit Republicans with demands for tax fairness.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal, which seems to have morphed into Rubert Murdoch's effort to recreate Fox News in print, ran what Ed Kilgore calls the "climate-change deniers' greatest-hits edition":
In these turgid lines can be found a treasure trove of prevarications. You've got your impressive-sounding list of scientists agreeing with the Journal (with no corresponding list of those who disagree; the newsprint or bandwith necessary to publish those would bankrupt even the WSJ). You've got your quote marks around the term global warming. You've got your allusions to the silly "Climategate" kerfuffle. And you've got your unsubstantiated allegations of "persecution" of the brave "heretics" who dare stand with poor, puny Industry against the awesome power of academics.
Well and good. Most of us know where the editorial page at the WSJ is coming from. For those who don't, who think that this contrived tripe means that scientists are really "uncertain" about human caused climate change, a couple of articles in yesterday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch suggest that they'll be in for a rude awakening sometime over the next couple of decades.
The first article in the Post-Dispatch confirms the impression of many of locals that the St. Louis area really has been getting warmer. The USDA has kicked the region up a notch on its planting zone map. While the article describes this change as positive - gardeners can now overwinter more delicate subtropical plants - it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there could also be negative implications for traditional crops as well as for crop pests that can thrive when winters are warmer, especially if this is only the beginning of a warming trend.
The second article notes that the on-going drought in the Southwest is one of the reasons for rising beef prices. Many climate scientists believe that such droughts, which have afflicted the area since 2001, will become the norm over time as warming accelerates.
These two casual pieces of reporting should not only concern those lulled into complacency by climate denialism, but those as well who acknowledge that warming is taking place, but think it is too expensive to do what is necessary to mitigate its effects. For instance, on the topic of drought, scientists warn that:
... climate warming will exacerbate water sustainability problems, the Southwest is likely to experience some of the highest economic expenses and environmental losses.
Nor are the risks of drought confined to the Southwest. Many climate-change models predict that as many as 87% of Missouri's counties "will face higher risks of water shortages by mid-century as the result of climate change." The new USDA map is one of the first indications that the process of warming is underway.
Senator Claire McCaskill often claims that she opposes meaningful efforts to control carbon emissions because of the it might increase energy costs and stress economically challenged Missouri families. Politicians like Blaine Luetkemeyer work hard to keep farmers worried over probably baseless threats that controlling carbon emissions will increase costs. No Missouri politicians seem to be worried about just how expensive doing nothing could very well be.
Even if dire claims about increased expense that will follow from effort to mitigate carbon emissions aren't, at the very least, highly exaggerated, they still represent short-term thinking in the face of a long-term march to disaster. I hope that the same Missouri families and farmers remember who misled them when they have to pony up to deal with the far more expensive problems attendant upon escalating climate change.
*Inadvertently omitted text restored to first sentence of last paragraph.
@clairecmc Claire McCaskill
I was not a co sponsor of PIPA. I cannot support it in its current form.I will post blog on my Tmblr later to explain. #PIPA 53 minutes ago
Remember Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the infamous Koch founded and funded organization that, among other achievements, got the Tea Party organized and on track? Want to know just which legislators in Missouri are most in tune with AFP goals? Well, you need wait no longer. The AFP has just issued a scorecard for the 112th Congress. The grades received by Missouri legislators, listed below (name, party and grade), is about what one would expect:
Roy Blunt (R): B
Claire McCaskill (D): D
Todd Akin (R): A+
Russ Carnahan (D): F
Wm. Lacy Clay (D): F
Emanuel Cleaver (D): D-
Jo Ann Emerson (R) B
Sam Graves (R): B
Vicky Hartzler (R): B
Billy Long (R): B
Blaine Leutkemeyer (R): B
If you want a vote breakdown, check out AmericansforProsperity.org/Scorcard. According to the DailyKos' Meteor Blades:
AFP chose to grade congressmembers based on their votes on repealing President Obama's new healthcare law, blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, supporting the demolition document known as the Paul Ryan budget, ending ethanol subsidies and several Congressional Review Act resolutions as well as the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills.
This rationale explains just why Republicans get high marks and Democrats get low marks - as a progressive, I'd be very disturbed if any Democrats scored higher than they did. That said, I do have to admit that I was surprised that most of Missouri's GOP legislators can't get better than B grades - only uber-winger Akin qualifies for an A grade (A+ actually). They sure talk a good game and one would have expected that they would reap a bigger reward. Perhaps ethanol subsides plays a role in their scores? Also of interest is the fact that no matter how far right she tries to list, poor Claire McCaskill can't do better than a D. I would have pegged her at C- (for centrist wannabe) myself - if only because of her efforts on behalf of Big Coal.
Claire McCaskill needs our help. Specifically, she needs some facts. Just listen to this video in which McCaskill gives us her opinion about the Keystone (KXL) pipeline controversy and you'll see what I mean:
First point: McCaskill says she thinks development of the Keystone pipeline is inevitable: "it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when and where," she says. And maybe she's right. Certainly there will be lots of money spent to make sure KXL happens - we know that Big Oil can really grease those congressional skids. However, because grilling seems inevitable, one doesn't, like St. Lawrence, have to turn over and ask the cooks to roast the other side.
One of the ways that Big Oil insures that they get their way is by spreading loads of BS, spurious research or outright falsehoods, disseminated by members of the Republican party with the aid of their tame media. Often, though, poorly informed - or cynical - Democrats like Claire McCaskill will echo the GOP line du jour, as she does in the video above. To her credit, one must add, McCaskill is much more tentative than the usual congressional big oil spokesperson, which leaves me with the impression that she might be receptive to a critique of her remarks.
Second point: Per McCaskill, if the pipeline doesn't go from North to South, it'll go East to West, remaining within Canada. She implies that such an eventuality would deprive the U.S. of oil that would otherwise contribute to our energy independence. It seems to have escaped her attention that the pipeline is designed to run North to Southern port refineries - where it will be sold to any country that's willing to pay the price.
The pipeline will connect refiners, as Money Morning Global Energy Strategist Dr. Kent Moors recently noted in his Oil & Energy Investor newsletter. The oil that reaches Gulf refineries could ultimately be consumed in the United States, but the finished products could just as easily be exported to China, Japan, or any other oil-hungry nation.
Energy companies will look to sell their oil to the highest bidder.
In fact, the United States is currently a net exporter of gasoline. In September, the U.S. exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline than it imported. ...
@clairecmc Claire McCaskill
Congratulations to my colleague Sen Blunt on his election to Republican leadership. Good for Missouri and for the Senate. 13 Dec
"...Good for Missouri and for the Senate..."
More like, good for lobbyists. A blast from the past:
And here the rest of us are without our umbrellas.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ....I was surprised when Vicky Hartzler told me that she would take earmarks, she would seek earmarks, so....
On television in the Kansas City market this morning, from Patriot Majority:
Announcer: If it sounds too good to be true...
Senator John Cornyn (r): I think we need am earmark moratorium...
Senator Mitch McConnell (r): ...support of a moratorium on earmarks...
Speaker John Boehner (r): ...have an earmark moratorium...
Announcer: ...it probably is.
Last year Congress said they were going to end earmarks. And then requested thirty-nine thousand of them, back room deals that would cost one hundred and twenty-nine billion taxpayer dollars.
Some in Congress are trying to end earmarks.
[Two Senators Propose New Earmarks Ban, CNN, 11/30/11]
For others it's just business as usual.
It's time to pass the Earmark Elimination Act and end earmarks for good.
[Paid For By Patriot Majority USA. www.patriotmajority.org]
On the television in the Kansas City market this evening:
Announcer: You don't work on Wall Street or have a K Street lobbyist. You're not a billionaire or a banker. And too many here just aren't listening to you. But, she is.
Claire McCaskill fought devastating cuts to Medicare because you earned your benefits. And she teamed up with a Republican senator to crack down on pork barrel spending and end the back room deals.
No, you don't work on Wall Street or have a lobbyist. But, you do have Claire McCaskill and she's fighting for you.
[Paid For By Patriot Majority USA. www.patriotmajority.org]
Patriot Majority?:
....Patriot Majority USA is is a 501(c)(4) with the primary purpose of encouraging a discussion of economic issues in the United States. To facilitate this discussion of economic issues, Patriot Majority USA utilizes the full spectrum of modern communications tools, including both earned and paid media, web sites, social media and online networking....
....As part of its primary purpose in 2011, Patriot Majority USA opposes economic policies that would kill jobs, threaten America's economic recovery and harm America's families. We also oppose fiscal policies that would end Medicare as we know it and destabilize America's economic recovery....
WASHINGTON, D.C. - After months of work combing through a national defense spending proposal, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today released an explosive report finding that members of the U.S. House of Representatives attempted to circumvent their own self-imposed ban on earmarks, and that hundreds of earmarks were secretly attached to the House's National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA) by the House Armed Services Committee.
McCaskill's report uncovers an elaborate scheme put in place by the House Armed Services Committee Chairman that was designed explicitly to allow his committee's members to earmark in violation of the ban on earmarks in Congress
"This has to be a record turnaround for members of the House who claimed to be giving up their addiction to earmarks," said McCaskill, who recently introduced bipartisan legislation to permanently ban earmarks from the legislative process. "These Representatives can insist all they want that they don't do earmarking anymore-but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And it demonstrates exactly why we need my bipartisan legislation to permanently ban earmarks...."
[emphasis in original]
There's more, from a database of National Defense Authorization Act earmarks provided by Senator McCaskill's (D) office:
Crossroads GPS, the nonprofit "social advocacy" organization that acts as a shill for the GOP, is doing it's thing and firing off the opening salvos in next year's Missouri senatorial race in hopes of weakening Claire McCaskill in advance of the Republican primary. The latest ad, though, prompts Politico's David Catenese to ask if Crossroads might be shooting itself in its metaphorical foot. Although the ad attempts to saddle an imaginary McCaskell-Obama duo with "$14,000 of new debt" for every Missourian, it ends with a prominently displayed quote from MCCaskill stating that "all of us need to realize the debt is a real problem." Catenese asks:
A casual observer doing laundry or on the treadmill may read that quickly and be left with the impression that McCaskill is ... serious about the debt problem.
Personally, if I were McCaskill, I might take the ad as a partial gift, do nothing defensive, but somewhat further down the road, make my own ads excoriating the free-spending GOP who got us into a financial mess and exploded the debt in order to give their rich cronies a tax break. What do you think?
UPDATE:PoliticMotells us that with this ad Crossroads has spent $1.1 million dollars trying to soften up McCaskill. Her strategy:
While the ads are designed fire up opposition to McCaskill, McCaskill has tried to use the attacks as material to encourage supporters to contribute to her campaign.
"Rove and the anonymous billionaires funding his attacks have a lot of money - and they'll use every cent to distort the truth," McCaskill wrote in September, in a fundraising email entitled "Rove is Back."
Catilin Legacki, spokeswoman for the Missouri Democratic Party, said the ads prove McCaskill has "stepped on the toes" of special interests in Washington.
"All of the attacks against Claire are going to be about distorting her record," said Legacki. "[W]hy won't this group say who is paying for these ads? Missourians shouldn't believe what's in them unless they know who is behind them."
The last paragraph references the fact that, by claiming to be a social advocacy group addressing only issues, Crossroads manages to avoid disclosing its donors. If these ads are any evidence, they're walking a might thin line in terms of their disclosure status.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
____________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 1, 2011
Statement by the President
Tonight, Senate Republicans chose to raise taxes on nearly 160 million hardworking Americans because they refused to ask a few hundred thousand millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. They voted against a bill that would have not only extended the $1,000 tax cut for a typical family, but expanded that tax cut to put an extra $1,500 in their pockets next year, and given nearly six million small business owners new incentives to expand and hire. That is unacceptable. It makes absolutely no sense to raise taxes on the middle class at a time when so many are still trying to get back on their feet.
Now is not the time to put the economy and the security of the middle class at risk. Now is the time to rebuild an economy where hard work and responsibility pay off, and everybody has a chance to succeed. Now is the time to put country before party and work together on behalf of the American people. And I will continue to urge Congress to stop playing politics with the security of millions of American families and small business owners and get this done.
###
The usual suspects:
Question: On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 1917 )
Vote Number: 219 Vote Date: December 1, 2011, 08:27 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion to Proceed Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1917
Measure Title: A bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for middle class families and businesses, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 51
NAYs 49
Blunt (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
[emphasis in original]
The bill needed 60 votes to proceed.
The bill included payroll tax relief for the 99% and a millionaire surtax for the 1%:
Yesterday saw an important vote in the Senate. Dahlia Lithwick succinctly summarizes the outcome:
On Tuesday 60 members of the United States Senate voted to preserve a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act-that would be the bill that funds the Pentagon-allowing the U.S. military to pick up and detain, without charges or trial, anyone suspected of terrorism, including American citizens, and to restrict transfers of prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay. Specifically, 60 senators voted against an amendment that would have invalidated the part of the bill which empowers the president and the military to detain anyone they suspect was involved in the 9/11 attacks or supports al-Qaida, the Taliban, or "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
Both of Missouri's senators are among the 60 who voted to support unlimited detainment of American citizens without benefit of trial. One of those two senators is, putatively at least, a Democrat.
Obviously one can expect no better from Senator Blunt, trapped as he is in the GOP need to reinforce a cartoon-ready tough-guy posture. But shouldn't we expect our Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, a person who at least pretends to be member of the party of reason, to take into consideration the fact that the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the DOJ's National Security Division and her party leader, President Obama, argued forcefully against the position she decided to take. Indeed, the President has indicated that it is such a bad idea that he will veto the bill if it contains the unamended provision.
In case that you don't get that our senators have done a very bad thing, consider Al Frankin's comments (via Steve Benen):
[W]hat we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment. Think about that for a minute. Life imprisonment. Without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime. Without ever having an opportunity to prove your innocence to a judge or a jury of your peers. And without the government ever having to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country.
@clairecmc Claire McCaskill
Just introduced myself to John Brunner in the security line at Lambert airport. He and his wife on my American flight to DC. 3 hours ago
Crossroads GPS, a republican right wingnut astroturf organization, continues to dump a ton of money into television ads attacking Senator Claire McCaskill (D). The latest attack ad:
Narrator: Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama. Their idea for a next step on the economy? Four hundred fifty billion in more wasteful spending. Senator McCaskill calls this new spending a step in the right direction? Just like their wasted eight hundred thirty billion stimulus last year. And billions more in auto and bank bailouts. Spending billions while step by step unemployment just continues to rise. Perhaps it's time for them to step in a new direction.
[Paid For By Crossroads Grassroots Political Strategies]
"...And billions more in auto and bank bailouts...."
Uh, who was President in 2008 when the automaker bailouts and majority of bank bailouts occurred?:
@sarah_steelman Sarah Steelman
To @clairecmc the word compromise is French for increase spending, raise taxes. bit.ly/uiBjNq #mosen #badidea 19 hours ago
French? What does that have to do with anything, other than being a dog whistle for the right wingnut base?
Imperative that we contact McCaskill and Blunt ASAP. Vote NO on S. 1751 that would weaken the EPA's power to regulate toxic coal ash. Missouri has some of the weakest environmental regs and inspections. This bill would give the state Dept of Natural Resources even more authority to ignore our health concerns and kow tow to Big Coal, headquartered in St. Louis.
Vote could come any day. House has already passed an equally disatrous bill.
McCaskill's D.C. office (202) 224-6154
Fax at St. Louis office (314) 361-8649
"...Let me finally say, I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane. He has hired a broker and I can tell you I will not be setting foot on the plane ever again...."
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and her husband sold the plane.
A statement from Senator McCaskill's Communications Director, Trevor Kincaid:
"Claire said she would sell the plane and did. True to her word as always."
The republicans filed an ethics complaint and the Senate Ethics Committee dismissed the complaint, finding that no rules were violated. The plane was sold at a loss for $1.9 million. The buyer was an air ambulance cooperative.
Claire McCaskill addressed the initial problem, discovered the property tax problem, disclosed it and promptly paid the bill. She said they would sell the plane, and they did.
And the republicans are still stuck with either Sarah Steelman or Todd Akin. Or is it Peter Kinder?
Statement from President Obama on the Senate Vote on Teacher and First Responder Jobs
For the second time in two weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again. That's unacceptable. We must do what's right for the country and pass the common-sense proposals in the American Jobs Act. Every Senate Republican voted to block a bill that would help middle class families and keep hundreds of thousands of firefighters on the job, police officers on the streets, and teachers in the classroom when our kids need them most.
Those Americans deserve an explanation as to why they don't deserve those jobs - and every American deserves an explanation as to why Republicans refuse to step up to the plate and do what's necessary to create jobs and grow the economy right now.
We must rebuild the economy the American way and restore security for the middle class, based on the values of balance and fairness. Independent economists have said the American Jobs Act could create up to two million jobs next year. So the choice is clear. Our fight isn't over. We will keep working with Congress to bring up the American Jobs Act piece by piece, and give Republicans another chance to put country before party and help us put the American people back to work.
###
The vote, just to discuss the bill:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session
Vote Summary
Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1723 )
Vote Number: 177 Vote Date: October 20, 2011, 09:55 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1723
Measure Title: A bill to provide for teacher and first responder stabilization.
Vote Counts: YEAs 50
NAYs 50
Blunt (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
[emphasis added]
Is anyone surprised that Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) turned out to be an obstructionist in the Senate and a protectionist for the privilege of the top one percent? Think about that the next time you're waiting for police or fire personnel during an emergency.
Located in the heart of Westport --
The Original Kansas City
Californo's: Elegant dining in a delightful atmosphere,
located in the heart of Westport
The second 
