Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Monday that big-name conservative super-PACs have singled her out and are trying to stop her from winning a second term in the Senate. “I’m getting all the brand names,” McCaskil said on MSNBC. “I think I’m at the top of a lot of folks’ lists, and I’m really trying to turn it.” Read more…
Well Claire, losing by seven points to a so called “weak candidate” and voting 98% of the time with President Obama (auto bailouts, stimulus, TARP & Obamacare) is going to make you a ripe target for defeat my friend. For six long years, we’ve had to listen and watch Claire perpetrate her populist “moderate” charade in the Senate. Now in her final months in office, we have to listen to her whine about super pacs? Please hurry up November!
On Friday, The Hill reported, “The Senate will vote [Tuesday] on overturning the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) controversial union-election rule, according to Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). The rule, which is set to go into effect on April 30, would speed up union elections, and has attracted criticism and opposition from Republican lawmakers and business groups. Enzi, the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said the rule would hurt U.S. employers.”
In an op-ed for The Washington Times last week, Sen. Enzi explained the problems these Big Labor-backed NLRB rules would create for employees and employers. “[T]he rule will . . . force employees to make the critical decision about whether or not to form a union in as little as seven to 10 days. The goal of the NLRB’s ‘ambush election’ rule is to keep employees from getting timely information from the employer and other sources. Under the new rules, the NLRB will not even sort out which employees should be included in which bargaining unit until after the union election. This means employees will not even know with whom they will be lumped when they are casting their votes. In another, concurring twist, a separate NLRB decision will allow labor bosses to organize micro-unions, which are smaller bargaining units that may not represent all similar employees in the workplace. Essentially, labor bosses will cherry-pick the employees who are favorable to the union and force an ‘ambush election.’ In non-right-to-work states, dissenting employees may be required to pay union dues even if they are forced into the micro-union. Employees who are not in the union will have to deal with a workplace brimming with competing demands, red tape and discord.”
Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune also discussed the NLRB rule in an op-ed last week: “Time and again, the regulatory agencies under this administration have sought to issue rules that stifle growth and job creation, despite the fact that we are mired in one of the most stagnant economic periods in American history. . . . Under President Obama’s NLRB appointees, the Board has become increasingly politicized, as demonstrated by its recent ruling unfairly tilting the scales in favor of unions in labor elections. The Board’s ruling, which was issued last year, is known as the ‘ambush’ election rule because it allows union organizers to surprise employers with petitions and force an election before employers have even had the chance to provide information to their employees. On a decision as important as whether or not to form a union, workers should have the opportunity to hear from both sides free from any pressure one way or the other — an opportunity the Board’s recent decision would take away. In fact, the only groups that appear to benefit from the NLRB’s ruling are unions seeking to increase their dues-paying membership.”
The Hill points out, “Forty-five Republican senators have backed the joint resolution, including Enzi, who is sponsoring it. His office said the joint resolution has been placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar and is expected to be debated on Monday and Tuesday.
The joint resolution will be brought up under the Congressional Review Act, which provides a way for Congress to overturn regulations. The measure can pass the Senate with 51 votes and cannot be filibustered.”
The state auditors office released results last week that regular MOPNS readers already knew: “Pay to Play Jay” top contributor Alternative Opportunities have two fee offices in the top five in revenue. The whole sordid history is below:
MOPNS: (9/21/09)
Alternative Opportunities, INC, a group that has been awarded numerous fee offices by Governor Jay Nixon’s Department of Revenue, (some of the most lucrative) recently acknowledged that they would be awarded a total of seventeen (17) fee offices around the state. The statement was made at a training session for the group’s new fee office employees. The group went on to state that they would soon be awarded the contract to run the Deer Creek Fee Office in St. Louis. This office is one of the five most profitable in Missouri. Read more…
1/08/10
While those who lie on official government documents are typically penalized or prosecuted, there is a new trend in Missouri – we reward them. Alternative Opportunities, Inc. (also known as AO), a not-for-profit corporation located in Springfield, failed to disclose a management contract that it had with a for-profit company when submitting bids to run several of Missouri’s license offices. Read more…
1/14/10
Steve Fenner, defense attorney and candidate for Greene County prosecutor, has a few questions regarding the budding Alternative Opportunties scandal”
Questions for the Department of Revenue
1. Why rebid? Isn’t the normal state procedure to award the contract to the second qualified applicant when the leading applicant is disqualified?
2. Should the DOR rebid offices every time a bidder is disqualified? If so, why wasn’t the Joplin office rebid sooner?
3. How was the point system used to determine the winning bid established? Does it give an advantage to contributors to the governor’s campaign? Does the DOR receive any input from the governor’s office when making its decision? Read more…
2/5/10
When he took office, Governor Jay Nixon made a production out of his bid to reform the way fee offices are awarded in Missouri, promising to use competitive bidding to remove any partisanship from the process. Months after his new system was implemented, one can see that Nixon has only been blowing hot air.
The biggest, most-profitable fee offices in the state have all gone to Nixon’s cronies while they have let a few of the smallest offices be awarded to token Republicans in an attempt to maintain the “nonpartisanship” narrative that Nixon has pushed in the press. Read more…
On Wednesday, the AP wrote, “Last December, Kristine Svinicki and other members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Congress that the NRC’s Democratic chairman was an intimidating bully whose actions could compromise the nation’s nuclear safety. The commissioners – two Democrats and two Republicans – said NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko was responsible for an increasingly tense and unsettled work environment, and that women at the NRC felt particularly threatened.Svinicki, the only woman on the five-member panel, said she was so uncomfortable around Jaczko that she asked her chief of staff to ‘keep watch’ over a private meeting with the chairman in her office.
“Now Republican senators say Svinicki is being targeted by the White House and Democratic leaders in the Senate. Her term expires in June . . . and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it clear he will oppose her. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., took to the Senate floor Wednesday to denounce the ‘curious lack of action’ on Svinicki’s reappointment and called any further delay unacceptable. Svinicki, 45, a nuclear engineer and former Senate GOP aide, is ‘one of the most respected commissioners ever to serve at the NRC,’ McConnell said, noting that the Senate unanimously approved her first nomination in 2008.”
This morning, Reuters reports, “President Barack Obama will renominate Republican Kristine Svinicki to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, defying opposition from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a White House official told Reuters on Thursday. Republicans want Svinicki, whose term as a commissioner expires in June, to stay on the panel and believe the process is being held up because she, along with three other commission members, accused the current NRC chairman, a Democrat, of bullying women.”
The important question now is whether Senate Democrats will swiftly confirm Svinicki since a Reuters report yesterday pointed out that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “is vehemently opposed to the idea” of Svinicki’s renomination.
Democrats have spent a lot of time recently trying to falsely claim that they are the only party that supports women. Why, then, would they oppose the nomination of an accomplished and respected women who blew the whistle on intimidation of women at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the commission’s Democrat chairman, Gregory Jaczko?
Reuters writes, “Last year, Svinicki and the three other commissioners at the NRC – two Democrats, two Republicans – took the unprecedented step of complaining to the White House about the management style of Gregory Jaczko, the NRC chairman. Their concerns were made public in December during hearings on Capitol Hill, where the commissioners accused Jaczko – a former Reid staffer – of berating senior women NRC staff members, bringing them to tears in front of others.”Svinicki told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about “the Chairman’s continued outbursts of abusive rage directed at subordinates within the agency’s staff” and emphasized that All members of the Commission, including me, have been on the receiving end of this conduct….”
One of the Democrats on the NRC, William Magwood, told the House committee, Senior female staff at an agency like NRC are smart, tough woman who have succeeded in a male-dominated environment. Enduring this type of abuse and being reduced to tears in front of colleagues and subordinates is a profoundly painful experience for them. The word one woman has used is ‘humiliated.’”
Would Senate Democrats really follow the lead of Harry Reid in opposing the nomination of a courageous whistleblower like Svinicki? As Leader McConnell said this morning, “[T]he only possible reason for this delay is the fact that she had the courage to blow the whistle on the Commission’s chairman, Gregory Jazcko, a guy whose temper and condescension toward subordinates — particularly women — nearly cost him his job. Let’s be clear about this: the only reason we’re even talking about Kristine Svinicki right now is because she had the courage to stand up to a hostile work environment, and to the bully who was responsible for it. She should be applauded for that, not hung out to dry.”
If Svinicki isn’t re-confirmed by the Senate, Leader McConnell said Wednesday, “[W]e will be forced to conclude that the reason is related to her honorable actions as a whistleblower — that she’s being held up in retaliation for speaking up against a rogue chairman who bullies his subordinates.”
“It is important for Missourians to know the character of those in office, as well as those seeking office,” Randles said. “Jay Nixon has clearly shown that his character is one that can be bought by the highest bidder. Besides being bad policy for Missouri, it is also highly illegal.”
The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch and Kansas City Star have published articles regarding Nixon’s connections to the questionable awarding of a Medicaid contract to Centene Corp. Prior to receiving the contract, Nixon had been the recipient of generous contributions from Centene and those affiliated with the company. Centene is also the controlling entity of recently embattled SynCare, which was involved in controversy last year.
“As I said earlier this month, there is little difference between what Jay Nixon continues to do, and why Rod Blagojevich is sitting in prison,” Randles said. “The Post-Dispatch rightfully alluded to this sentiment in their editorial, pointing out that Blagojevich engaged in the exact same activity regarding Illinois’ Medicaid contracts when he was still governor.”
Couldn’t have said it any better than this comment left on Van Susteren’s blog:
“McCaskill is nothing but a political opportunist and hack. As someone that grew up in KS and lived in MO there were several bets about who would get closer to Obama, McCaskill or Sebelius. It was sickening to watch this pair from KS and MO almost on their knees. She is nothing but a lackey for the DNC until it comes to election time and has always been. She is trailing in the polls and will do whatever she has to say and lie to gain votes this fall and then run as fast as she can to the left for the next 5 years into Obamas lap until it is election time again. If the polls are correct she is no longer believed by the residents of MO and thankfully so. It is the “show me” state and she has shown all she needs to by her record not by her rhetoric.”
Ted Nugent came on The Dana Show to talk about the secret service investigating these comments toward President Obama at the recent NRA convention in St. Louis:
“If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”
This is a threat? Sounds like he’s worried about this government taking more of our freedoms and rights.
President Obama made a big show yesterday of announcing yet another effort to investigate alleged “manipulation” of oil markets. Of course, this is yet another political response to the problem of painfully high gas prices which will do essentially nothing to lower them, just like his recent push to raise taxes on American energy producers. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out yesterday, this is “the same thing Washington Democrats always call for when gas prices go up. . . . The President’s goal here isn’t to do something about the problem. It’s to make people think he’s doing something about the problem, until the next crisis comes along.”
The Washington Post editors certainly aren’t buying it. They write today, “President Obama is fond of saying that there is no silver bullet to bringing down gasoline prices. On Tuesday, however, he went into the silver bullet business. With gas prices high and an election looming, the president announced a very public ‘crackdown’ on ‘those who manipulate the market for private gain at the expense of millions of working families.’ . . . Yet the administration can’t offer any satisfying explanation for why [his policies] are so necessary as to require emergency congressional action.” The editors add, “[A] senior administration official deflected questions about whether regulators have detected any hint of manipulation and would not give an example of the sort of rigging the president suspected regulators might find with more resources. The official instead repeatedly pointed to Enron — a scandal involving electricity, not oil, markets. So the argument boils down to: ‘Maybe the CFTC will find something, we don’t really know what.’”
Of course, they point out, “No one should imagine that this will help much at the pump, no matter how much the White House talks of the urgent imperative to protect vulnerable consumers. America, after all, has been down the blame-price-manipulators road before. In 2006, President Bush ordered an investigation into gas-price gouging that had trouble finding even credible complaints of price manipulation. In 2008, the CFTC found that speculation wasn’t systematically driving gas-price increases.”
The editors at Bloomberg are even less impressed. “No one, least of all President Barack Obama, should expect oil or gasoline prices to fall because of the five-point plan he unveiled at the White House yesterday,” they wrote yesterday. They explain, “[S]peculators aren’t inherently bad. Quite to the contrary: They serve a vital purpose, helping create a market of buyers and sellers. Many academic researchers have found that speculators, by anticipating future price moves, can reduce volatility. It is true that traders, as opposed to actual users such as airlines and truckers, account for the bulk of the transactions in oil futures markets. But that doesn’t mean they are to blame for higher oil prices. Speculators also operate in the markets for natural gas, where prices have plunged almost 60 percent in the past year because of vast increases in supplies. Speculators can push prices up or down, but they can’t repeal the laws of supply and demand.”
