There will be two big stars at the Republican National Convention, and neither of them will be Mitt Romney.
One will, of course, be Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate. The other will be Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, who will give the keynote address. And while the two men could hardly look or sound more different, they are brothers under the skin.
How so? Both have carefully cultivated public images as tough, fiscally responsible guys willing to make hard choices. And both public images are completely false.
I've written a lot lately deconstructing the Ryan myth, so let me turn today to Christie.
When Christie took office in January 2010, New Jersey — like many other states — was in dire fiscal straits thanks to the effects of a depressed economy. Unlike the federal government, states are required by their constitutions to run more or less balanced budgets every year (although there is room for accounting gimmicks), so like other governors, Christie was forced to engage in belt-tightening.
So far so normal: While Christie has made a lot of noise about his tough budget choices, other governors have done much the same. Nor has he eschewed budget gimmicks: Like earlier New Jersey governors, Christie has closed budget gaps in part by deferring required contributions to state pension funds, which is in effect a form of borrowing against the future, and he has also sought to paper over budget gaps by diverting money from places like the Transportation Trust Fund.
If there is a distinctive feature to New Jersey's belt-tightening under Christie, it is its curiously selective nature. The governor was willing to cancel the desperately needed project to build another rail tunnel linking the state to Manhattan, but has invested state funds in a megamall in the Meadowlands and a casino in Atlantic City.
Also, while much of his program involves spending cuts, he has effectively raised taxes on low-income workers and homeowners by slashing tax credits. But he vetoed a temporary surcharge on millionaires while refusing to raise the state's gasoline tax, which is the third-lowest in America and far below tax rates in neighboring states. Only some people, it seems, are expected to make sacrifices.
But as I said, Christie talks a good (and very loud) game about his willingness to make tough choices, making big claims about spending cuts — claims, by the way, that PolitiFact has unequivocally declared false. And for the past year he has been touting what he claims is the result of those tough choices: the "Jersey comeback," the supposed recovery of his state's economy.
Strange to say, however, Christie has told reporters that he won't use the term "Jersey comeback" in his keynote address. And it's not hard to see why: the comeback, such as it was, has hit the skids. Indeed, the latest figures show his state with the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation. Strikingly, New Jersey's 9.8 percent unemployment rate is now significantly higher than the unemployment rate in long-suffering Michigan, which has had a true comeback thanks to the GOP-opposed auto bailout.
Now, state governors don't actually have much impact on short-run economic performance, so the skidding New Jersey economy isn't really Christie's fault. Still, he was the one who chose to make it an issue. And even more important, he's still pushing the policies the state's recovery was supposed to justify.
Which brings me back to the comparison with Paul Ryan. Ryan, as people finally seem to be realizing, is at heart a fiscal fraud, boasting about his commitment to deficit reduction but actually placing a much higher priority on tax cuts for the wealthy. Christie may have a different personal style, but he's playing the same game.
last day to register to vote in Missouri to vote in the general 2012 presidential/state
election is October 10th.
last day in Illinois is the 9th of Oct
WASHINGTON (AP) -- People and businesses underpaid their taxes by an estimated 17 percent in the most recent year studied, failing to send the government a massive $450 billion that it was owed, according to an Internal Revenue Service report released Friday.
The study covered 2006, the most recent data the IRS said was available. The amount of underpaid taxes far exceeded the size of the entire federal budget deficit at the time.
After IRS audits and other enforcement efforts, non-compliance in 2006 shrank to 14 percent. That left the final amount of unpaid taxes at $385 billion, the agency said.
Friday's report immediately became fodder for lawmakers arguing that any effort to overhaul the tax code — which seems a long-shot in an election year — must include closing the gap between what is owed and actually paid.
"The best way to increase compliance is to reform the tax code to make it simpler," said Michelle Dimarob, spokeswoman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. She said that would cause fewer errors and "greater certainty, which is key to job creation."
"In an era when we're squeezing the federal budget for every dollar of savings, we have to make every effort to recover these lost funds," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
By either measure, the total of unpaid taxes in 2006 was larger than that fiscal year's budget deficit of $248 billion. Federal fiscal years begin in October of the previous year.
Federal deficits have since mushroomed out of control, hitting a record $1.4 trillion in 2009 and barely receding to $1.3 trillion last year. President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress have agreed to some spending cuts but have remained deadlocked over how to curb the gigantic budget shortfalls that are projected indefinitely.
Sunday, September 30
9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
Adult & Pediatric vaccinations (6 months & up)
Barnes-Jewish West County Hospital, Medical Office Building 2
10 Barnes West Drive, Creve Coeur, MO 63141
Parking is available free on site.
Monday, October 1 - Friday, October 5
7 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Adult vaccinations only (18+ years old)
Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Main Floor Lobby
One Barnes-Jewish Hospital Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63110
Parking is available in the South Garage for $1.50/hr
Monday, October 1 - Friday, October 5
8 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Adult & Pediatric vaccinations (6 months & up)
Center for Advanced Medicine, 3rd Floor Lobby
4921 Parkview Place, St. Louis, MO 63110
Parking is available in the North Garage for $1.50/hr
The less discussed "secret" of the Ryan plan is how middle class workers will be equally squeezed. One of Ryan's big ideas is to simplify the tax code down to two brackets, with rates of 10% and 25%. For middle class people making between $40,000-$125,000 a year, there will be some small tax savings. In practice, the vast majority of the tax "cuts" will accrue to the richest among us: the bipartisan tax policy center has estimated a tax cut of about $14,000 for the top 20% of income earners, while expecting a savings of more than $155,000 for the top 1%.
Proposed changes for income from investments, held by and large by the wealthiest Americans, continues this pattern: The tax rate on long-term capital gains is 15%, already the lowest it has been in our history, will decrease further under the Ryan budget -- to zero. It proposes the end of the estate tax, one of the few remaining tax burdens on the wealthy. Under the Ryan plan, revenue will be enhanced by closing tax 'loopholes" and entitlements -- but the largest of these, the deductions from mortgages and insurance premiums, are critical to the middle class. For many middle class families, affording a home is only possible with the help of mortgage deductions.
Joseph Stiglitz, another Nobel-prize winning economist has shown in his new book, The Price of Inequality how tax policy in the last two decades has been the overwhelming force to concentrate more and more of the wealth of this country in fewer and fewer hands. As that wealth becomes scarcer to those underneath this last tenth of the one percent, the opportunities for upward mobility, better jobs and higher living standards become scarcer as well. The Ryan/Romney budget plan only accelerates this trend with every proposal it makes.
Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate led to a wave of pundit accolades. Now, declared writer after writer, we're going to have a real debate about the nation's fiscal future. This was predictable: Never mind the tea party, Ryan's true constituency is the commentariat, which years ago decided that he was the Honest, Serious Conservative, whose proposals deserve respect even if you don't like him.
But he isn't and they don't. Ryan- omics is and always has been a con game, although to be fair, it has become even more of a con since Ryan joined the ticket.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/21/3973680/krugman.html#storylink=cpy
That one man — Mr. Rove — has the power and audacity to try to undo the will of 217,430 voters, and that many top Missouri Republicans are aiding and abetting his efforts, should confound and dismay most Americans.
It confirms what those who have been paying attention to the big money in our political system have known for a while. To deep-pocketed donors, the U.S. Senate race in Missouri has nothing to do with Claire McCaskill and whether she cast a vote intended to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance. It has nothing to do with Mr. Akin saying dumb things.
Minutes after Akin said he would stay in the race, Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, released a statement saying Akin should "carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service."
Crossroads GPS, which has spent millions on ads in Missouri attacking McCaskill, confirmed on Monday that it has canceled a new ad buy for Akin.
just over a week since securing the GOP nomination, Akin has doubled-down on likening student loans to socialism, questioned the value of voting rights laws, called for the end of the federal school lunch program and then — in an interview that made national headlines — openly speculated about the consequences of “legitimate rape.”
It’s no wonder why McCaskill was more than happy to assist Akin’s primary campaign with an ad hailing him as “the true conservative.”
In a span of 12 short days, the six-term congressman’s performance has confirmed the worst fears of Republicans while breathing a burst of fresh hope into McCaskill’s underdog bid.
week that the race tilted in Akin's favor because of his consistent polling lead. (Akin led Democrat incumbent McCaskill by 11 points in a recent Survey USA poll.)
On Sunday, Silver changed his mind.
"Have to wait for polls, but on instinct I'd call McCaskill a 2:1 favorite in #MOSEN now," Silver wrote, predicting the polls could swing against Akin by 10 points.
He added: "Calling McCaskill a 2:1 favorite prices in some chance that Akin will drop out. I'd take her side of those odds if he stays in."
McCaskill has trailed in all recent polling. Democrats, guided by the belief that McCaskill had better chances against the more conservative Akin, spent millions in the Missouri Republican primary trying to help Akin defeat his two GOP rivals. Polls after the election showed McCaskill still trailed Akin in a direct matchup.
snip
The best measure of what an uphill reelection battle Claire McCaskill has faced this year is probably this: Her opponent’s matter-of-fact assertion in a television interview that most victims of “legitimate” rape are biologically incapable of getting pregnant from it probably elevates their race to toss-up status – at best.
There’s been one independent poll taken since Todd Akin scored an upset victory in Missouri’s August 8 GOP Senate primary, and it put the six-term congressman 11 points ahead of McCaskill. That survey was released in the immediate wake of the primary, and even if you think it was an outlier, there was good reason to believe the basic proposition that Akin was ahead. After all, polling in the run-up to the primary had consistently shown every GOP candidate consistently leading McCaskill.
This is testament to the increasingly red tint of Missouri, a state that Bill Clinton carried twice in the 1990s but that swung back to the Republicans in 2000 and has stayed there since, even amidst Barack Obama’s dominant national victory in 2008. This year, the state generally isn’t considered part of the White House battleground, which helps explain why McCaskill, who won her seat in the anti-Bush tide of 2006, is in such jeopardy.
If Mr. Akin lost a net of 10 points in the polls to Ms. McCaskill because of the remark, he would be trailing her by five points in surveys rather than leading her by about that margin.
It can be easy to overrate the importance of scandals in the first few days after they occur. Many voters will vote along party lines almost no matter what, and others will decide based on factors like the economy or an incumbent senator’s voting record.
Nevertheless, my view is that insensitive comments concerning rape are especially likely to be deemed inexcusable by voters, and that the swing against Mr. Akin could be larger than the average of 10 percentage points from similar events.
Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign sought to distance itself from Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) Sunday after Akin said women who are victims of what he called “legitimate rape” can potentially prevent pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
In a brief statement late Sunday night, the Romney campaign said it does not share Akin’s view, nor will the Romney-Ryan ticket govern in keeping with his belief that abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape and incest. Akin himself later tried to back away from the comments.
“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” the Romney campaign said in statement. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”
The position is somewhat consistent for Romney, who has said he favors making abortion illegal except in the case of rape, incest or “to save the life of the mother.” Before he ran for president in 2008, Romney ran as a pro-choice Republican in Massachusetts.
SEDALIA -- Missouri’s two U.S. Senate candidates tangled Thursday over whether taxpayers should subsidize school lunches for more than 34 million students across the country.
U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican candidate, said he opposes federal spending for the National School Lunch Program, which provides cash and surplus food for nearly 650,000 school lunches in Missouri each day.
“Is it something the federal government should do?” Akin said. “I answer it no. … I think the federal government should be out of the education business.”
Akin made the statement outside the 60th annual Governor’s Ham Breakfast at the Missouri State Fair on the week many students are heading back to the classroom.
The big-tent, early-morning gathering was an opportunity for candidates of both parties to shake hands, distribute literature and profess support for the state’s farmers and ranchers.
Akin’s Democratic opponent, Sen. Claire McCaskill, quickly attacked Akin’s opposition to the federal school lunch subsidy.
“I support federal school lunches,” she said. “The notion that the federal government should stop using surplus commodities to help public schools feed kids lunch is a nonstarter for me.”
McCaskill was referring to one part of the school lunch program in which the federal government buys surplus food and distributes it to public and private school cafeterias. In fiscal year 2011, the government sent surplus food such as meat, cheese and fruit worth $24.8 million to lunchrooms across Missouri.
This week, the government said it would purchase meat and fish worth $170 million to help farmers stricken by the drought. Some of those chops and filets will find their way into school lunches.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/17/2955875/missouri-rep-akin-opposes-spending.html#storylink=cpy
U.S. flags fly with Chinese flag outside the White House. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(CNSNews.com) - The money the U.S. government owes to foreign entities rose to a record $5.2923 trillion in June, according to data released by the U.S. Treasury Wednesday afternoon.
In May, the U.S. Treasury had owed $5.2581 trillion to foreign entities. On net, in June, the U.S. government borrowed an additional $34.2 billion from foreign entities in order to fund U.S. government operations.
The U.S. government’s indebtedness to foreign interests has grown by 72.3 percent during President Barack Obama’s term in office. In January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. government owed $3.0717 trillion to foreign entities, according to the Treasury Department. That has increased by $2.2206 trillion—or 72.3 percent—to the record $5.2923 trillion reported for yesterday.
Entities in the People’s Republic of China remain the largest holders of U.S. government debt. Entities in Japan, however, are on track to eclipse the Chinese as the top holders of U.S. government debt.
In June, the Chinese held $1.1643 trillion in U.S. government debt, up slightly from the $1.1640 trillion in U.S. government debt the Chinese held in May. However, Chinese ownership of U.S. government debt hit an historical peaked of $1.3149 trillion in July 2011 and has been on a generally downward trend since then.
--------
do you think made in America stuff might help?
Since Friday's announcement of Mr. Ryan as his vice presidential choice, Mr. Romney has been trying to put some distance between himself and the most radioactive of Mr. Ryan's many budget and policy ideas. On "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Mr. Romney said, "I have my budget plan. And that's the budget plan we're going to run on." Probably not. Mr. Romney's own vague "plan" has been deemed "mathematically impossible" by a nonpartisan study. Also, he previously endorsed Mr. Ryan's plan as "bold and exciting" and "very much needed."
Unlike Mr. Romney's "plan," the latest iteration of Mr. Ryan's budget proposal, "The Path to Prosperity," is chock full of alarming specifics. The next generation of Medicare recipients (those 55 and younger) will get vouchers to buy private coverage. Mr. Ryan's plan envisions giving seniors enough help to pay for first-class medical coverage — in Britain or France. In the United States, the vouchers could leave them $6,000 a year short of what coverage will cost in 10 years.
As to Medicaid, the joint state and federal health insurance plan for the poor and disabled, Mr. Ryan would turn over full responsibility to state governments. Wealthy taxpayers would see big tax breaks; the poor and middle class would see tax increases and program cuts.
And then there's the rest of government. Unless massive amounts of revenue are raised by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes (which he hasn't been specific about), under the Ryan plan, federal spending for everything except defense, health care and Social Security would be zeroed out by 2050.
No doubt all of this delights Grover Norquist and the rest of the Americans for Tax Reform. If the goal for government, as Mr. Norquist once said, is "to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub," the Ryan plan — which, because Mr. Romney has defaulted on specifics is now the Ryan-Romney plan — ought to do it.
Given the state's increasingly Republican leanings and the thrashings the siblings have taken at the polls recently — Robin Carnahan lost the U.S. Senate race to Republican Roy Blunt in 2010 — is the family tradition nearing an end?
Though the Carnahans demur, others say the answer is yes, at least for the foreseeable future.
"It's difficult to see how you would resurrect yourself from the back-to-back defeat of Robin Carnahan by such a sizable margin and the defeat of Russ Carnahan by an even more sizable margin," said Terry Jones, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
Even if the Carnahans tried again, other Democratic candidates would be unlikely to defer to them and could consider it time for a new face, Jones added.
The Carnahans themselves don't rule out a comeback.
committee Missourians for Conservative Values, was entirely concocted to help Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, in his race for lieutenant governor.
Mr. Lager lost. The other money shifters — Missourians for Low Energy Costs and Missourians Against Higher Utility Rates — played their secretive game in three state senate races. Those groups spent their dirty money on Republicans Scott Largent ($167,000) and Ward Franz ($113,000), and Democrat Jeanette Mott-Oxford ($63,000).
All three lost.
Voters won.
In each of these cases, unless the nonprofit that received the money eventually discloses its donors, voters will never know for sure who spent the money to try to influence their votes.
-------------
Akin on KCMO Talk Radio -- August 8, 2012: KNAPP: Well, what do you want to do to Medicare? AKIN: Well, I think what we need to do is, what we have to do with Medicare is... It's a typically flawed, big government solution. In Medicare you have got the government setting prices for things. Anytime the government sets any price for anything you've got trouble. You need to have that done in the marketplace. So, first thing off I think you want to get rid of all of those government set prices for healthcare things and allow people to just bid on that business. So, people that are in Medicare will have the opportunity to choose somebody that's going to provide services for them and they can choose between different things, different providers. So, if somebody doesn't do a good job for you, boom, you move to something else. So, that's one of the first things that's in Medicare that's got to be done is to get rid of all the government price setting. KNAPP: Are you still looking to partially privatize [Social Security]? AKIN: Well, I think the first thing in Social Security, I don't know if you'd call this privatizing, I think, and this is where I think FDR was cheating on this system, that would be if you put money, and your employer puts money into Social Security for your retirement, why should that be in a little account that you can see the money and watch it grow? Why should be just take that money and spend it on general, all kinds of things that the government wants to spend money on it. We're spending other people’s retirement. Why shouldn't that money go into some account? Maybe it's held by the government; maybe you can’t get your hands on it very easily. But at least the money should go into your account instead of just sort of disappearing in the vapors as big government boys want to spend it all now and forget about what's going to happen tomorrow.
snip The end of the program that provided up to 20 additional weeks of jobless benefits—in addition to the states’ usual 26 weeks—and the additional weeks available under the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), was part oflegislation passed in February to keep the EUC alive through 2012.
That bill reduced the number of weeks of available to jobless workers and also changed the formulas that would trigger extra federal jobless benefits, in effect, cutting benefits even further by setting higher thresholds for unemployment pain. Click here for a closer look from the National Employment Law Project (NELP).
are nudging some Americans into poverty, straining social services just as states and localities face their own budget woes and further crimping weak economic growth as those who lose benefits spend less.
The average unemployed American has been out of work 40 weeks, according to the Labor Department, and there are still about three jobless people for every job opening.
August 9, 2012
Dear
Thank you for contacting me regarding Medicare and Medicaid. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you may know, on March 20, 2012, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin released a budget proposal that calls for massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and would drastically change these programs at the expense of beneficiaries. Although I am fully committed to addressing our federal deficit in the long term, I am strongly opposed to dismantling these programs as the House Republican proposal suggests. I was deeply disappointed when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives fully embraced the Ryan budget proposal, voting to pass it by a 228 to 191 vote.
Medicaid and Medicare are vital programs that provide medical care to many of America's seniors, persons with disabilities and children. Medicare was enacted, in part, because the 1950 Census found that only 1 in 8 seniors had health insurance. Private insurance companies considered elderly Americans as too big of a risk. Companies continued to deny coverage to older Americans until the enactment of Medicare. With Medicare, seniors no longer have to live in fear of losing affordable health insurance when they need it the most, and the Medicaid program has provided an essential health safety net for seniors, children, the poor and disabled as well. Our nation should not return to a time when the ability for seniors to access healthcare is at the whim of insurance companies.
The House Republican FY 2013 Budget, drafted by Representative Ryan, would change Medicare from a program that provides guaranteed healthcare coverage to seniors, to a voucher program where each senior would be forced to purchase either private health insurance or a form of traditional Medicare that has much higher out-of-pocket costs for seniors. This would shift substantial costs to Medicare beneficiaries, and would be especially burdensome for low-income seniors who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. The Ryan Budget would also repeal some coverage Medicare beneficiaries currently receive, including stripping the reforms that will close the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage, commonly known as the "donut hole," and that provide Medicare beneficiaries coverage for often life-saving preventive health services with no cost-sharing. Such drastic changes to Medicare that would jeopardize seniors' access to quality and affordable health coverage, strip benefits, turn back on our nation's promises to our elders, and add costs to seniors already struggling to get by are wholly unacceptable.
Representative Ryan's proposal would also deeply cut Medicaid spending by turning the program into a block grant. Medicaid is a cost-sharing partnership between the federal government and the states. The federal government, through matching funds, pays over 65 percent of the cost-sharing arrangement in Missouri, and in return, it requires Missouri to cover certain groups of uninsured seniors, children, people with disabilities and the poor. Turning the Medicaid program into a "block grant" would harm children and seniors in Missouri. In part, the proposal would force states to shoulder a greater share of the costs of the program, something states can ill afford, and so will likely force a reduction in the number of people who can receive critical Medicaid health coverage. We need a real plan that seeks to control costs in the Medicaid program while protecting current beneficiaries and making the program sustainable for the future.
Denying Medicaid to those in need merely shifts the location of their care to emergency rooms and the cost to Missouri citizens through higher insurance premiums. Unless we as a nation decide to let sick, poor people die without getting medical care, we must figure out the most low-cost way to serve them. That certainly is not in emergency rooms.
While I oppose turning Medicare into a voucher program and turning Medicaid into a "block grant", I understand that if the federal government is to address its long-term deficit problems, which is driven in large part by the projected growth in costs in programs like Medicare and Medicaid, we must look into ways to reform these programs to ensure they remain solvent for future beneficiaries and for the government's fiscal health. However, the Republican plan badly misses the mark by disproportionately making America's poor, elderly, and disabled shoulder these budget cuts. I am hopeful Congress will explore more responsible reforms and innovative approaches to curbing increases in healthcare costs, to protect Medicare and Medicaid for the future.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Claire McCaskill
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at http://mccaskill.senate.gov.
-------
Claire: universal healthcare is the answer; not romneycare/obamacare
For example, a key part of the ongoing healthcare reform efforts requires patients to declare a “medical home,” much as it does in most European healthcare systems, in order to control costs and coordinate care through an “accountable care organization.” Zipple argues that the pieces of the system are not linked together in a way that makes sense. “The divide between behavioral health and the rest of medicine is substantial,” and that divide leaves his clients worse off than other poor people.
Medical care, public or private, he and his staff say, separates physical illness from medical treatment — not only in the way Medicaid and private insurance pay for care, but also with the research models governing pharmacological research into drug efficacy and side effects. “A lot of the medications we use, particularly the anti-psychotics, have side effects that induce all kinds of metabolic problems. It’s well-known that people on these kinds of drugs are at higher risk for weight gain, diabetes and increased cholesterol levels — all of which result in shorter life expectancy.”
Three recent morbidity and mortality studies in Maine, Massachusetts and Ohio showed variously 50 to 300 percent higher death rates for patients diagnosed with mental/behavioral problems compared to the same age groups in the general population.
There were some exceptions to the larger pattern. Clay did well in upscale, mixed-race areas of the city like the Central West End. And even in the most predominantly white city wards on the south side, Carnahan never broke 78 percent.
But overall, the numbers confirm what was increasingly evident during the campaign: Race mattered.
Nearly half of the district is within the city borders. The rest of the district is largely in north St. Louis County, where Clay also handily beat Carnahan. The county did not provide vote breakdowns for individual neighborhoods.
Turnout figures varied, but in several of the wards where Clay did the best, turnout was significantly above the citywide average.
"What I'm thinking is that some of the predominantly white areas didn't turn out to the degree you might expect," said Lana Stein, former political scientist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. "There wasn't a galvanization of white residents to the degree that there was a galvanization of black residents."
The reason, she theorized, is that to many white voters, it was just another congressional contest, while to many black voters it was about the fate of the state's only congressional seat representing a majority-minority district, one that's been there for four decades. "I think that was very important," Stein said.
"This is going to be a test to see how conservative Missouri really is," said Ken Warren, a political science professor at St. Louis University.
After Akin's victory, McCaskill's campaign stopped playing nice and put up a website, TruthAboutAkin.com, which skewers Akin for allegedly siding with special interests and taking "extreme positions" on Social Security and other issues.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee declared ominously that voters soon would be learning more about Akin, a "Tea Party congressman" who "has compared student loans to stage-three cancer, suggested that Medicare is unconstitutional and claimed that 'the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God.'"
Akin's touchstone is a loyal base of churchgoing conservatives who show up at the polls no matter what, a voting bloc likely to be unaffected by such attacks.
"That could work for him," Warren said. "The Tea Party movement is strong, and the evangelical vote is big."
Akin, a deeply religious man, has long been a favorite of evangelicals.
White evangelical Christians who said they are born again made up 39 percent of Missouri's electorate in 2008, according to exit poll data. That is 13 points higher than the national average of 26 percent.
There has been plenty to criticize about President Barack Obama's handling of the economy. Yet the overriding story of the past few years is not Obama's mistakes but the scorched-earth opposition of Republicans, who have done everything they can to get in his way -- and who now, having blocked the president's policies, hope to win the White House by arguing that his policies have failed.
Last week's shocking refusal to implement debt relief by the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency -- a Bush-era holdover the president has been unable to replace -- illustrates perfectly what's going on.
Some background: Many economists think that the overhang of excess household debt, a legacy of the bubble years, is the biggest factor holding back economic recovery. Loosely speaking, excess debt has created a situation in which everyone is trying to spend less than their income. Since this is collectively impossible -- my spending is your income, and your spending is my income -- the result is a persistently depressed economy.
How should policy respond? One answer is government spending to support the economy while the private sector repairs its balance sheets; now is not the time for austerity, and cuts in government purchases have been a major economic drag. Another answer is aggressive monetary policy, which is why the Federal Reserve's refusal to act in the face of high unemployment and below-target inflation is a scandal.
Of course the problem with "whatever is true" is figuring out what's true, particularly when it conflicts with "whatever you'd like to be true" or "whatever feels true."
Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, would like voters to believe that he can cut everyone's marginal tax rates by 20 percent without increasing the deficit or further reducing the taxes paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of households, thus making it look like a giveaway to people like him.
He professes to believe this is true, but it's the only part of his "bold, conservative" plan for tax reform that he has released. Without further details — like which programs he'd cut or what loopholes he'd eliminate — it's impossible to test conclusively the truth of Mr. Romney's claims.
The TPC gave Mr. Romney's plan the benefit of every doubt, with generous assumptions about economic conditions, tax progressivity, bias on behalf of programs that incentivize savings and investment and the growth that the program would inspire.
Nearly 300,000 more Missourians could soon get access to health care if Missouri state officials decide to provide it. Unfortunately, recent comments by the state Legislature's leadership cause us to believe that they seem poised to deprive Missourians of this basic human right.
We, members of the Consumers Council of Missouri, urge the public to consider this decision carefully and act in the best interest of our friends, families and neighbors. Missourians must insist that members of the House and Senate and Gov. Jay Nixon not tolerate avoidable human suffering. As stewards of health care for hundreds of thousand of poor Missourians, these state officials should increase the role of Medicaid in the manner spelled out by the Affordable Care Act.
It's humane and compassionate and it makes economic sense for Missouri consumers.
The Missouri Foundation for Health recently determined that over the next five years, the ACA would pump $8 billion into Missouri to expand health care to the 300,000 people. The state would be responsible for only $400 million, a small amount in comparison. If policymakers are inclined to think that 5 percent responsibility is too steep for Missouri, they should appreciate that the $8 billion will primarily become taxable income for health care providers (that's jobs, jobs, jobs). No matter how you do the math, it's going to cost the state very little to save a bunch of lives and provide health care for hundreds of thousands of Missourians.
Compound that with the fact that each of us in Missouri already pays for the health care of these 300,000 uninsured members of our community.
The following is a round-up of Post-Dispatch editorial board endorsements in area propositions, ballot questions and contested races in Tuesday's primary election.
U.S. Senate, Republican primary: Todd Akin
What we wrote: "He isn't faking it when he endorses the worst of the GOP agenda. He actually believes it. What you see is what you get."
Missouri governor, Republican primary: Bill Randles
What we wrote: "He's smart. He'll be massively outspent in the fall, but he'll challenge Jay Nixon, the Democratic incumbent, to defend his policies...."
U.S. House, 1st District, Democratic primary: Russ Carnahan
What we wrote: "We choose the plodder over the pal of predatory profiteers."
Missouri Senate, 1st District, Democratic primary: Scott Sifton
What we wrote: "Mr. Sifton's position against accepting lobbyists' gifts puts him in a better position to challenge [the] lobby-friendly incumbent...."
What we wrote: "In the House ... she backed all the right policies, standing up for children and families, pleading with her colleagues to care about the poor and pushing for a revamped tax structure that would bring more revenue to the state and create a fairer collection system."
“If you don’t expand Medicaid and you eliminate the DSH funding, you have the ability to significantly impact hospitals’ financials,” said Missouri Hospital Association spokesman Dave Dillon, who was not at the oversight committee meeting. “It’s extremely problematic.”
Nearly every hospital in the state receives DSH payments, and they stand to get a combined $784 million in DSH payments under the 2013 budget.
“Losing this money would be a big deal for rural hospitals,” said oversight committee chair Dr. Corinne Walentik, a professor of pediatrics in the Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine at St. Louis University.
Walentik said she worries that as many as 40 to 50 percent of rural hospitals could close if those payments cease with no backup.
“It would probably cost the state more to not take (the Medicaid expansion),” she said. She compared the expansion to a stimulus program that will help rural communities save thousands of jobs that would be lost if hospitals are forced to shutter because of the financial constraints.
Too many US prisoners aren’t being treated with dignity, fairness and equal protection under the law. A 2011 report has found that the private prison industry spent millions seeking to increase sentences and incarcerate more people in order to increase the profits of the industry. Earlier this year plans were announced to shut down LA’s Men’s Central Jail.
LA Country Jails comprise not just the largest and the most violent jail system in the nation, but also by default one of the nation’s largest mental health care providers. Despite having fewer than 5% of the world’s population, the USA leads the world in holding nearly a quarter of the world’s prisoners and in the rate of incarcerating its own citizens. Joining me now here in the studio is Dr. James Austin, he’s President of the JFA Institute, the multi-disciplinary research center whose mission is to conduct research on the causes of crime and the justice system’s response to crime and its offenders.
Another organization that highlights its interest in sustainability is Enbridge, Inc. The company joined forces with the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business on March 27, 2012, to unveil the Enbridge Centre for Corporate Sustainability.
But these days the name Enbridge is more likely to evoke images of its 2010 oil spill, in which 20,000 barrels of oil flowed into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. The disaster has been called the largest inland oil spill in the history of the U.S. Midwest.
In its July 25 report on the Enbridge oil spill, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board twice recommends that Enbridge require its operators “to provide system-specific information about their pipeline systems to the emergency response agencies of the communities and jurisdictions in which those pipelines are located.” The report goes on to say that these reports should include details such as “pipe diameter, operating pressure, product transported, and the potential impact radius.”
The federal health-care law may not seem to have much to do with a statewide office with the responsibility for running elections and registering businesses.
Shane SchoellerBill StoufferScott Rupp
But the Affordable Care Act has emerged as a bludgeon for state Sens. Scott Rupp, R-Wentzville, and Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, against House Speaker Pro Tem Shane Schoeller, R-Willard. It's also becoming a regular bogeyman in Republican primaries for other statewide offices.
In the case of the secretary of state’s contest, both state senators released ads this week accusing Schoeller of supporting President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement. Rupp’s ad, for instance, accused Schoeller of voting to “implement Obamacare in Missouri, the largest job-killing tax increase in American history.”
Stouffer’s spot went even further, claiming that Schoeller “cut a deal and voted for Obamacare.”
“That’s right, Shane Schoeller voted to implement Obamacare, helping Obama take over our health-care system,” Stouffer’s ad stated. “Shame on Shane Schoeller. You can’t trust him.”
What both senators are referring to legislation debated in 2011 to organize health-insurance exchanges in Missouri. Some Republicans – such as the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Molendorp, R-Belton – argued that it made more sense for the state, and not the federal government, to set up the exchange.
Molendorp’s bill ended up passing in the Missouri House 157-0 but stalled in the Missouri Senate. Sen. Jane Cunningham, a Chesterfield Republican who endorsed Schoeller, said the bill contradicted a ballot initiative passed in 2010 to prevent the implementation of the federal health-care law in Missouri.
