Kevin Engler

So the Post-Dispatch has a story today headlined, "GOP may restrict attack tactics in ads."   (Apologies if coffee just spewed out your nose).

The article is interesting, even if it doesn't provide any evidence to believe the headline, or give any indication of how Sen. Majority Leader Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) and House Floor Leader Steve Tilley (R-Perryville) might enforce a "a code of conduct for primary campaigns" if they ever get around to drafting such a code. What's notable (to me, anyway) is that in an article in which Engler complains about "hard-charging consultants who orchestrate political attacks" and  "political consultants that use people like pawns in a chess game and don't care whether what they're saying is the truth," the consultant retained by each of the allegedly dirty campaigns is Jeff Roe.  Something tells me Roe doesn't really care what Engler thinks.  "You strap on the chinstrap and go to war" when you run for office, Roe told the Post-Dispatch.

But stepping back from the intraparty squabbling for a moment, the thing I find most striking about Engler's proposal is that his alleged concern for honesty and dignity explicitly excludes general election and public policy campaigns. His "code of conduct" is only meant to apply to primaries, and he's only worried about "whether what they're saying is the truth" when it concerns his Republican candidates.  How commendable! 

Couldn't he at least pretend to care about honest campaigning in the 90 days between the primary and general elections?

"What I'd like to do is go back from the best ethics bill in the universe and get it down to the best ethics bill in the galaxy -- and maybe beyond -- but not universe."

Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields on SB844, the "ethics" legislation passed last Thursday in the House

The whole exchange between Sens. Shields and Victor Callahan about the House legislation was pretty interesting. 

Listen:

In the News-Press, Sen. Gary Nodler says his move to gut the House-supported stacked taxes fix may "discourage" legal challenges from folks like former Rep. Tom Burcham, but "leaves the status quo in place."

There's something very odd about this move from Nodler.  The current law is unclear -- some judges have allowed cities to pass multiple sales taxes, relying on a Department of Revenue interpretation, but other judges have said that practice is improper.  Burcham has gone all over the state looking for towns to sue (though curiously, he's not interested in suing his own town of Farmington). 

The Star reports that Sen. Gary Nodler (R-Joplin) has removed language from a House-passed bill that would clear up ambiguities in the state's rules on "stacked" sales taxes in municipalities.  Former state Rep. Tom Burcham -- who happens to be a major fundraiser for Majority Leader Steve Tilley (R-Perryville) and practice law in Sen. Kevin Engler's (R-Farmington) hometown -- has developed quite the racket exploiting the ambiguities, much to the chagrin of local taxpayers.

In December, the News-Leader reported that Tilley, Engler and Burcham had struck a deal to end the lawsuits and pass a legislative fix.  The House passed a fix in a bill (HB1442) sponsored by Birther Rep. Tim Jones (R-Eureka) with a "crushing majority."  But Nodler has introduced a committee substitute that would keep towns -- including Joplin -- in a bad spot.  The Star:

But in the Senate today, Sen. Gary Nolder, a Joplin Republican, introduced a substitute bill completely erasing Jones' language and putting in its place a measure that would require those suing a city to pay the city's legal fees should the court rule in the city's favor.

Informed of the substitute bill, Jones expressed dismay.

"If that is the change, then it avoids fixing the original problem," he said. "It removes the solution to the original problem."

Nodler acknowledged that issue and said he was reluctant to change the bill in a way that left the central ambiguity intact, but had to do so to prevent a filibuster that would risk killing other elements of the bill.

Sen. Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) does not like the proposal from Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau) to create a two-year waiting period for legislators before they can cash in as lobbyists or accept appointments to state positions.

While Crowell may have his own self-serving reasons for proposing the ban and making his colleagues squirm, a revolving door ban of at least one year seems like a basic good government policy.  Among other things, such waiting periods would make it hard for legislators to negotiate the terms of their next job while still in public office. For example, fellow Sen. John Griesheimer (R-Washington) has made it public knowledge that he wants someone to hire him as a lobbyist when he's done with the Senate later this year; it would be shocking if a prospective employer hasn't broached that topic with the Senator at some point. 

Engler sees things differently.  In his mind, Crowell's proposal would restrict service in the Missouri General Assembly to the unemployed, retired and independently wealthy.  Moreover, he says "we want people in the halls" to have "experience," and says (half?) jokingly that a ban might open lobbyist gigs and state appointments to "retired, un-business-like people who don't have jobs."

The Senate began its floor debate of ethics legislation proposed by Sen. Charlie Shields (R-St. Joseph).  As outlined in the Post-Dispatch, his bill

would add more heft to the Missouri Ethics Commission, require more disclosure of campaign donations made during the legislative session, ban most committee-to-committee transfers and broaden the definition of lobbyist. The bill would also make it illegal for lawmakers to work as political consultants for other lawmakers.

The debate lasted a little more than two hours, and was put on hold when it became clear that Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau), a close friend and client of disgraced Rod Jetton, announced that he had a series of amendments.  Listen to the whole debate:

I'm concerned some lawmakers and leaders in the Capitol may have spent too much time debating nonbinding resolutions about federal policies, and forgotten that the General Assembly has actual responsibilities regarding appropriating money in Missouri.

Consider, for example, the following passage from Sen. Kevin Engler's most recent constituent newsletter (h/t The Turner Report):

Also this week, we continued to hear about some of the troubling news of budget withholdings and shortfalls that will affect people’s lives and safety. On top of over a $42 million dollar shortfall of this year’s budget for public education, the governor announced a $24 million withhold of the state’s investment in rural broadband and another $29 million that was supposed to go for interoperability of public safety communications systems. While I understand times are tough for the state. Much of these painful, unexpected cuts could have been avoided if a balanced budget were presented by the governor to the general assembly over the past two years.  (emphasis mine).

What, exactly, is Kevin Engler talking about?

Yet another story about the exaggerated and manufactured estimates from Missouri Republicans about federal health care reform legislation. The AP:

[Lt. Gov. Peter] Kinder released “an open letter” to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon last week asserting that Missouri’s cost could be as high as $450 million a year. Kinder chief of staff Rich AuBuchon said later that Kinder got the figure from House Budget Committee Chairman Allen Icet, who got it last fall from the Department of Social Services.

But the agency no longer uses the $450 million estimate. That’s because it was based on a previous version of the federal legislation and assumed states would have to shoulder a greater proportion of the expansion costs than is currently proposed. [...]

Don't bother doing any research or talking about how the federal health care proposals will effect the states -- just make up numbers that sounds scary.

Of greatest concern, [Charlie] Shields and [Kevin] Engler said, is the potential cost to the state for an expansion of Medicaid under the health-care bill.

That cost could be $250 million, $450 million or maybe even $1 billion, they said.

"It's the biggest unfunded mandate that's ever been sent onto the states," Engler, of Farmington, said.

It could be a billion dollars!   Or it could be one hundred billion dollars! 

Or...the compromise bill that comes out of House and Senate negotiations could produce a bill that's somewhere in between the two bills that have already been passed and evaluated -- and cost the state somewhere between $91-$188 million more each year. 

House Floor Leader Steve Tilley and
Senate Majority Leader Kevin Engler

Because members of the House and Senate apparently don't have any other pressing matters to address, Republican leaders in both chambers have decided to focus their first few weeks "debating" federal health care and clean energy legislation.  From the News Leader:

State lawmakers say reforming their own ethics, creating jobs and balancing the state's cash-strapped budget are top priorities this year.

But they won't likely focus on those issues in the first weeks of the session, which began Wednesday.

Republican leaders in both chambers intend to bring up "several" non-binding resolutions reacting to federal climate change and health care legislation being debated in Congress, said Senate Majority Leader Kevin Engler, R-Farmington.