Steve Kraske

 I've been wondering a bit in recent days what sort of ethics legislation might develop in the coming months in response to stories like those in last week's Star. Based on the obvious reluctance from legislative leaders to move any meaningful measures, it's hard to be overly optimistic. Steve Kraske expressed similar sentiments in his most recent column, quoting Rep. Brian Yates (R-Lee's Summit), who's unsuccessfully tried to convince his own party's leaders to move on some basic reforms in recent legislative sessions.

That said, I was encouraged to see a tweet from Rep. Jason Kander (D-Kansas City) on Friday, in which he said he'd "had some very encouraging discussions with Republican colleagues" about the ethics reform proposals he first distributed in early September.

The Turner Report posted details of Kander's September 9 Dear Colleague memo last week, which can be distilled down to a few new ideas and a few oldies but goodies. 

I'm not mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that the $381 million in HB22 and the $785 million in the FY2010 budget add up to around $1.17 billion in federal stimulus approved by the "fiscally conservative" appropriators this week.

You may or may not recall that the librul spendthrifts in the Governor's office proposed spending a smaller sum -- $809 million -- at the front end of this budgetary fiasco.  Such plans were mocked and ridiculed at the time as unnecessarily risky, irresponsible and akin to riverboat gambling. Here's one good example (sadly, the full article is no longer on the KC Star's website):

Nixon betting on federal stimulus to balance Missouri's budget
February 12, 2009
by Steve Kraske, Jason Noble and David Keppler

To some political observers, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is a riverboat gambler betting the mortgage on a ridiculously risky play...

In Missouri, Republicans call Nixon's plan for stimulus money a "Mad Max" gambit destined to mire the state in a financial hole from which it may take years to escape.

"Irresponsible," said House Budget chairman Allen Icet, a Wildwood Republican.

"A ticking time bomb," said House Speaker Ron Richard, a Joplin Republican.

A "ridiculously risky play" no more, it would seem.

Or consider this example, with comments from Peter Kinder, who's been all over the map with using stimulus money.

Steve Kraske's reaction to the House Election Committee's passage of a new Photo ID + Early Voting constitutional amendment is really frustrating. Like too many others, Kraske sees one policy change supported by a lot of Republicans, sees another policy change supported by a lot of Democrats, and seems to believe that since they're both together, it's a wash. After all, all legislative goals are equally cyncial and self-serving, right?

Republicans, who have been clammoring [sic] for years for voter ID legislation, get that in the proposed package.

Democrats, just as eager for advanced voting (like Kansas), get what they're looking for.

Still, Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan isn't pleased. She opposes the voter ID bill, which would require a voter to show some sort of government-issued photo ID (like a driver's license). Some 200,000 Missourians lack such a credential and, as a result, they won't be able to vote. Never mind that most of them are probably Democrats.

First: Missouri already has voter ID requirements. Republicans want Photo ID laws because they create new hurdles to voting.