After the November 2018 midterm election, Missouri voters could congratulate themselves on being ahead of the curve in the nationwide drive for anti-gerrymandering laws. But the elation was short-lived. One day after voters passed Constitutional Amendment 1—nicknamed “Clean Missouri”— by an overwhelming 61% margin, Republicans in the “Show Me” state showed their true colors and began a cynical effort to undermine the new law.

The Clean Missouri amendment includes sweeping new provisions aimed at reducing government corruption at the state level. The new law limits gifts to legislators and bans elected lawmakers from becoming lobbyists immediately after serving in office, among other restrictions.

But the biggest news in the new law is how it revises the process for redrawing congressional district boundaries after each national census. And that’s the provision that Missouri Republicans are targeting.

Here’s what is different about Missouri’s new approach to congressional redistricting. According to AP,

Other states have created independent commissions and required bipartisan votes to redraw legislative and congressional districts. Missouri will be the first to rely on a new mathematical formula to try to engineer “partisan fairness” and “competitiveness” in its state legislative districts; the Legislature will continue drawing the state’s congressional districts.

It’s an experiment—one that Missouri Republicans want no part of because, according to an AP analysis:

…it has the potential to end the Republicans’ super-majorities in the state House and state Senate and move the chambers closer to the more even partisan division that is often reflected in statewide races. But the size of the likely Democratic gains remains uncertain, partly because the formula has never been put to a test.

[Also, there’s science, analysis and factual information involved. Those things apparently turn off Missouri Republicans as well.]

So, without missing a beat, Missouri Republicans declared war on Amendment 1. According to the New York Times,

The day after the election, the Republican speaker of the Missouri House, Elijah Haahr, said that he wanted “to strike up conversations with African-American lawmakers who have expressed misgivings that Clean Missouri could reduce the [number] of black lawmakers,” Jason Rosenbaum of St. Louis Public Radio reported. That’s a classic strategy for Republican gerrymandering: Effectively guarantee black-held seats in exchange for reducing the overall number of Democratic seats.

In addition,

…opponents of the amendment created a political group to undermine it, Tony Messenger, a metro columnist for The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, has noted. The group has the Alice-in-Wonderland name of “Fair Missouri” and $150,000 in initial funding. Its goal is to place a new measure on the ballot that would sabotage parts of the amendment before they can take effect.

The covert, state demographer gambit

The most cynical anti-Amendment 1 strategy is one that will take place far out of the spotlight of ballot initiatives and special elections. Rumor has it that one Republican state representative is preparing a bill that would simply defund the newly created state demographer’s office.

How would that proposal affect Missouri’s anti-gerrymandering effort? Bigly. A report from KSDK-TV describes the impact:

Currently, state House and Senate districts in Missouri are redrawn after each census by bipartisan commissions. Members are appointed by the governor from nominees submitted by the Democratic and Republican parties.

Amendment 1 creates a new position of nonpartisan state demographer who would propose maps to commissioners that reflect the parties’ share of the statewide vote in previous elections for president, governor and U.S. senator. Criteria of “partisan fairness” and “competitiveness” would outrank more traditional criteria such as geographically compact districts.

De-funding the state demographer is a starve-the-beast, behind-the-scenes maneuver that would, essentially, kill the entire effort.

Interestingly, Missouri’s state website has duly posted a job opening for State Demographer and is accepting applicants. Among the duties of the job, the listing says that the state demographer:

Prepares periodic estimates and projections of the state population, and county-by-county population estimates and projections.

Serves as liaison with state agencies, the federal government, and local governments regarding population estimates and projections for the State of Missouri .

And, most importantly,

Supervises the decennial reapportionment project, including the supervision of professional, technical, and clerical personnel.

[Translation: the demographer is in charge of the data used in redistricting after every US Census.]

The pay scale is attractive: $50,000 – $80,000. The job could be a great landing place for a highly competent, non-partisan statistics nerd. The question is: With Republicans in a tizzy about the new law, and given their multi-pronged anti anti-gerrymandering effort, how long will that job posting—or the job itself, once filled—last?

These strategies show that the Show Me State  —  at least its Republican party — is not, as is popularly believed, out of step with the rest of the US. Undermining initiatives passed by voters [and even elections for high office]  is quickly becoming a national Republican strategy. Looking to Wisconsin, Michigan and other states as role models for controverting the time-honored democratic concept of “the will of the people,” Missouri Republicans can now congratulate themselves for being right there in the ugly, sour-grapes, democracy-defying mainstream of the GOP.

The post MO GOP’s overt / covert plots to undermine new anti-gerrymandering law appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s been in the media for just a few days but has already received national attention. Missouri Representative Paul Wieland and his wife are suing the federal government for “forcing” them to receive health insurance benefits that include coverage of birth control, which is against their religious beliefs.

Rep. Wieland, quoted here:

Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan (MCHCP) sent a letter last month informing me that even though in January 2011 I had enrolled in a plan without coverage of abortion inducing drugs because of my religious belief and moral convictions, they were placing me in an insurance plan that includes these objectionable procedures.

The MCHCP and the Obamacare health plan forces my family to participate in what we feel is an intrinsic evil. Terri and I fervently believe abortion inducing drugs on demand do not constitute medical or healthcare. My family believes abortion is the intentional destruction of innocent human life which according to our beliefs is gravely immoral.

Rep. Wieland and his wife seek an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) birth control mandate, which states that all employee-based health insurance plans must provide reproductive health coverage at no additional cost. The mandate does not force women to actually use birth control, but makes it available and affordable to women who do need it.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Forget for a moment that in no way does the ACA (commonly referred to as “Obamacare”) force insurance providers to cover abortion services, despite claims to the contrary. It’s possible that Rep. Wieland and his wife have confused emergency contraception with “abortion-inducing drugs,” a rather common mistake made by people who need a better understanding of human reproduction and how birth control works.

Emergency contraception, like the many forms of birth control regularly prescribed by doctors, prevents pregnancy from happening in the first place; it does not end or abort an already fertilized egg. Emergency contraception–also known as Plan B and the “morning after pill”–is sometimes wildly misrepresented by politicians with an anti-women’s health agenda. Despite this, the FDA recently approved Plan B for over-the-counter purchase, eliminating the need for a doctor’s prescription and health insurance coverage.

So back to the claim that the ACA forces the insured to pay for abortion against their will. This particular topic has long been argued and debunked as political hyperbole. Federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions, except when medically necessary to save the life of a woman, or in the case of rape and incest. Furthermore, the ACA stipulates that every state must have at least one plan on the exchange that does not offer abortion coverage. There is no opposing requirement that one or more plans on the exchange must offer abortion coverage.

Check it out:

The law requires at least two national plans in every state within four years, overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which will negotiate rates and contracts.  The law says at least one of the multi-state insurers must be a nonprofit, and at least one must not offer abortion services.

That’s not enough? States have the right to prevent insurance providers on the health insurance exchange from covering abortion services. Thus, anti-choice folks are more than protected by law from paying for or otherwise participating in religiously objectionable abortion services.

Why this matters

Clearly, Mr. Wieland has only two options; keep the “intrinsically evil” health insurance coverage he is offered as a government employee or, as he put it:

Do I just cancel the coverage and put my family at risk? I don’t believe in what the government is doing.

Perhaps feeling backed into a corner and unaware of the irony, Rep. Wieland is keeping his insurance coverage and suing the federal government for putting him in this morally awkward, unavoidable position. Unavoidable, that is, unless there were another option. Another option such as paying for his own private insurance plan. This is a popular alternative to government health care [Medicare/Medicaid] espoused by more than a few state lawmakers who don’t want to expand Medicaid to cover uninsured Missourians. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

RFT reports:

He tells us he conferred with a friend who works in the health-insurance industry and realized there was no insurance plan accessible to him that excludes coverage of these practices.

It’s interesting to note that there may be no other health insurance plans accessible to Rep. Wieland [R-Imperial], given that Congressional Republicans have voted dozens of times to repudiate the ACA, which includes the aforementioned health insurance exchange. The health insurance exchange, accessible this October, would offer consumers more insurance options and promote competition amongst health insurance providers.

The intention there is to make a wide range of insurance coverage more affordable for and accessible to everyone. Another provision of the ACA offers tax credits to help Americans pay for private health insurance, ostensibly making pricier options available to people who could not otherwise afford them. Lest we forget, the exchange would also have at least one insurance plan that does not cover abortion services.

But Wieland’s own voting record shows he has voted “yes” on Missouri legislation prohibiting the implementation of the ACA. Say, isn’t that like shooting yourself in the foot? I hope the state’s government employee health insurance covers self-inflicted wounds, this seems to be a trend.

It will be interesting to see if Rep. Wieland’s dilemma and resulting lawsuit will put things in perspective for him. Right now, there are thousands of hard-working Missourians who have even fewer health insurance options than him, and they could really benefit from the ACA, particularly the expansion of Medicaid. This is an opportunity to do more than take a moral stand for himself and his own family, he can still do the right thing for about 300,000 Missourians too.

The post This week in litigious politicians: MO state rep sues federal gov’t over birth control in ACA appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As a constituent concerned about the state legislature’s decision to expand Medicaid to cover more Missourians, I wrote to my local lawmakers. They were kind enough to respond personally to my concerns, but one response had me even more concerned–concerned about the misinformation readily accepted as fact in the state capital.

Read below the laundry list of rightwing talking points from State Rep. Thomas Flanigan. What’s left unsaid? Everything.

Thank you for your recent email requesting that the General Assembly commit more borrowed federal money to the state’s Medicaid program.  I have consistently opposed this proposal for the following reasons:

1) Our federal government created this crisis by reducing DSH payments to hospitals and I believe the federal government should shoulder the entire responsibility of working to ensure hospitals are not threatened.

DSH or Disproportionate Share Hospital is a program that provides funding to hospitals-such as poor rural and inner city hospitals-that care for a larger number of people who are unable to afford paying for treatment. What Mr. Flanigan did not say is that the ACA’s (Affordable Care Act) Medicaid expansion would have made DSH payments all but irrelevant, because the people unable to pay for hospital care would be covered under the expansion.

SCOTUS’s decision allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion put a wrench in the cogs and Missouri Republicans’ unwillingness to expand Medicaid has hospitals asking for DSH cuts to be reversed. Missouri Hospital Association spokesperson, Dave Dillon, says DSH cuts should not be an argument against expanding Medicaid. That’s right, Missouri hospitals want an expansion of Medicaid.

2) The federal government is severely in debt and shows no signs of alleviating that burden on our kids and grandkids.  Our current spending levels are unsustainable and we cannot keep kicking the can and giving people false promises of entitlements we know will be cut drastically to curb the deficit.

We should be concerned about the debt. Which is why the popular anti-tax sentiment of  the majority party in our state government is alarming in its lack of logic. You cannot sustain government or provide for the general welfare of the people simply by cutting the budget repeatedly. That is as unsustainable as Mr. Flanigan claims social programs are. Increases in the cost of living never end. There must also be revenue increases to protect essential programs–but raising taxes (and cutting the behemoth that is our country’s absurd defense budget) has become taboo and is often taken off the budget table entirely. We’ve witnessed as much time and time again during federal budget talks.

A great example of how extreme budget cuts have a negative impact on people is 2005’s huge Medicaid cut that kicked nearly 100,000 Missourians off of the state’s health insurance rolls. There are entire industries in this state that do not offer employees any health insurance benefits. There’s just not enough living wage jobs with benefits for everyone, no thanks to attacks on living wage job holders, but that is an entirely different discussion. Missouri Medicaid used to cover these working class people who had no other options for health care. Now hundreds of thousands of gainfully employed people are uninsured.

What happens to uninsured working class people who get sick and are unable to receive the care they need because they cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket? They become disabled and/or unable to continue working, then fully dependent on the government or the largesse of those who care; a dependency the rightwing has consistently (and offensively) railed against. Healthy people are productive, contributing members of society and much less likely to be dependent. Providing health coverage is ultimately a money saver. As Ben Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

3) Our state government’s credit rating is in jeopardy because of the level to which it already receives payments from the federal government.   Accepting this “deal” will only worsen that reliance and cost Missouri taxpayers more in the long run.

This point contradicts his first point, where he says “the federal government should shoulder the entire responsibility of working to ensure hospitals are not threatened”. He also inadvertently disproves his own “too much  spending, not enough cutting” argument by bringing up the AFA’s DSH cuts; savings that help pay for a Medicaid expansion.

As he points out later in his list, the federal government will only be making full payments for three years. After that, they will match funding with the state to provide Medicaid coverage to thousands of Missourians. In the end, this vague point leaves me wondering why credit ratings are more important than health care to a party that is so against government borrowing and debt.

4) Medicaid is broken.  I’ve never heard anyone on Medicaid say it was a well-run program.  Instead, I repeatedly hear about how access to care is limited at best and non-existent for many who are on the program.

Medicaid is broken because Missouri state lawmakers broke it. Limited health care is what happens when the program’s budget is cut time and time again. It is non-existent for the 100,000+ people who were kicked off due to budget cuts. This is quite simply a matter of self-fulfilled prophesy. Rightwing lawmakers claim government-run programs are terribly run and inefficient, but they will never utter the reasons why: they are destroying these programs from within by starving them of funding and expounding on the evils of big government. Their no-mercy economic policies create the hardships that make it unnecessarily difficult for working people to become financially independent.

5) Proponents have not signaled where in the budget they would cut once this program expands.  Once our share kicks in, hundreds of millions in revenue will not be available for other purposes.  Right now, education funding is the second largest expenditure in the state (next to social welfare programs) meaning it will likely suffer cuts to make payments for able-bodied adults to receive a Medicaid card.

Note that only budget cuts are supposed here. There’s no mention of revenue increases, which would come from the thousands of jobs created by an expansion of Medicaid. There is no mention of any of the absurd tax legislation being proposed by state Republicans that would take more money away from the “able-bodied” workers of this state while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires; clearly a revenue buster and financially detrimental to large swaths of Missourians. It’s odd that their anti-tax policy does not apply to the working poor or any of the other people (seniors, veterans) who would benefit from a Medicaid expansion.

6) The estimates that were produced that claim this expansion will be a job creator are just patently misleading.  In fact, they assume we will never have to raise taxes to support this vast increase in government spending.  Once those taxes kick in, our economy will react as it always does to new taxes – negatively.

See number 5, specifically this helpful explanation of how expanding Medicaid will create jobs, save us all money, and benefit Missouri businesses. This is why non-partisan groups from all over the place have endorsed the expansion. No explanation or evidence to the contrary was offered by Mr. Flanigan, just the statement that job creation claims are misleading. I asked Mr. Flanigan for data on the correlation between tax increases and a poorer economy. None was provided.

The truth is that Missouri Medicaid has failed countless working and senior Missourians. It is not the failure of a government-run program, however, it is the failure of Missouri’s lawmakers to adequately fund the program. It is the failure of the state legislature that ignores overwhelming support for a Medicaid expansion in favor of political points. State lawmakers need to put aside political shenanigans and get to work creating jobs, a promise as yet unfulfilled. They can start by expanding Medicaid.

The post Missouri Medicaid: A state budgeting failure appeared first on Occasional Planet.