By Tony Messenger

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Thomas Schweich
JEFFERSON CITY — State auditor candidate Thomas Schweich threw himself into Missouri politics by announcing he was an outsider.
Well, he’s no Brock Olivo, but his voting record seems to back him up.

Schweich, a Republican from Clayton, didn’t vote the last time a Missouri auditor (Democrat Susan Montee) was elected, in 2006. That was the same election that pitted Claire McCaskill against Jim Talent in the race for U.S. Senate. McCaskill beat Talent, the Republican incumbent.

Schweich had been criticized by some Republicans earlier this year for donating to McCaskill’s campaign when she was running for state auditor.
A check of St. Louis County voting records show that Schweich has voted seven times since 2000, skipping 2006 entirely and not voting in any municipal elections. He voted in general elections in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2008. Also, he voted in the presidential primary in 2000, and primaries in August 2000 and August 2008.

Schweich’s opponent in the Republican primary, state Rep. Allen Icet of Wildwood, has voted 25 times in the same time period, voting in all general elections and primaries and April municipal elections, according to county records.

“One of the reasons I’ve said I’m an outsider is that I’ve never been a really politically active person,” said Schweich in response to questions about his voting record. “I think you’ll see that I voted in all other general elections.”

Schweich was living in Virginia in 2006, when he worked for the U.S. State Department. He didn’t vote in that state that year, either.

(Pictured left-to-right: Rep. Allen Icet, Susan Montee and Thomas Schweich)

Representative Allen Icet (R-Wildwood), better known on StateSurge.com for his sponsorship of House Appropriation bills, is on top of his game for the 2010 State Auditor race. As the Chairman of the House Budget Committee for five years running, Allen is looking to take his finance experience one step further. In this role he was responsible for allocating state funds—now he wants to help ensure state funds are getting spent and utilized in the way they were originally intended.

Thus far, the race has two other candidates vying for the state auditor position: Thomas Schweich (rhymes with bike), the former Special Ambassador to Afghanistan, and Susan Montee, the current State Auditor. Montee is the only Democrat in possibly contending so far.

If Icet is able to blow past the primary and defeat the incumbent, he will bring a very unique perspective to the state’s chief watchdog position in Jefferson City.

In the private sector, Icet began his career as an engineer, working his way up to eventually conducting audits and forecasts for Conoco Phillips. In the public sector, he worked on the House Budget Committee for all eight years of his legislative career, with the majority of that time spent serving as Chairman. This challenge has placed Icet as one of the most fiscally powerful people in the state, playing a central role in the allocation of Missouri’s $22-23 billion dollar budget.

This background outlines a sharp contrast to the other two candidates.

Schweich reportedly opted out of running for the open MO Senate Seat for an indicated exchange of support from Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, Rep. Roy Blunt, Sen. John Danforth and Sen. Kit Bond for his state auditor race. After widespread rumor of his bid being announced from a locker room in Washington University (Saint Louis), Schweich announced his candidacy in a statewide fly around with nominal support attending.

Montee is a formally trained CPA with much experience in administrative accounting. She received a law degree but otherwise doesn’t appear to have a very broad work experience outside of the field.

Thus far, Icet is the only candidate to release his first wave of endorsements.

Only July 7, (the same day Schweich announced his bid for state auditor), Icet released the 80 state representatives and 4 state senators that are endorsing his candidacy. To view the official press release, click here.

If Icet is able to secure the election he is expected by many to bring a fresh perspective to an otherwise officious office. With his unique experience in the legislature, he has built strong relationships in a bipartisan fashion with legislators from around the state. Furthermore, he has witnessed firsthand the all-too-common disconnect between the legislator’s original intent for, and the execution of, taxpayer dollars. After a review of his sponsored and cosponsored bills, it is not hard to see that he truly does have a great deal to bring to the people of Missouri.

To view Icet’s official campaign website, which includes an interview clip, click here.

Tom Schweich’s official website is: www.tomschweich.com

Susan Montee’s official website is:  www.susanmontee.com (despite the fact that she’s announced her intentions to run for election, she hasn’t posted any information as of this post date)

Author: Jared Fallon

For more information, see www.mofairtax.com 

 HJR 36, The MO Fair Tax plan, is a proposal to restore personal liberty, government transparency and fiscal accountability back into Missouri’s tax code.

It results in a real pay raise for residents, empowers the state’s economic engine and shifts the entire business system from taxation to customers and employees.

Ed Emery’s Fair Tax plan is a reform for the better, and truly seeks to restore Missouri’s competitiveness.

But what exactly is the MO Fair Tax?

HJR 36 seeks to ask the voters of Missouri to decide on a plan to replace the state income tax with a consumption (usage) tax. If put into law, the bill would raise the sales tax by 1.1% and broaden the scope of the tax to include personal and property and taxable services. The Missouri General Assembly would be allowed to make one adjustment to the rate to make it revenue/spending neutral.

Despite Emery’s plan to ensure Missouri’s economic growth, many people are questioning the timing of his proposal.

At a time when layoffs and fears of economic recession are commonplace, why would Missourians want to reform the state’s tax code?

The reason, sadly, is that Missouri is falling behind.

The tax system has become far too bulky and government transparency is wavering. Tax evasion is increasing while illegals avoid contributions. The complex tax code distracts from opportunity and discourages small businesses. Items are taxed every time they are sold, no matter how many times they are purchased and many services are not taxable. The solution? A usage tax that doesn’t fault individuals for working.

A single, revenue-neutral sales tax is the answer.

For proof, consider the Show-Me Institute’s report “Tennessee vs. Missouri: Taxes May Tip the Odds.” It states, “By any economic measure, Missouri dominated Tennessee at the end of World War II. Since then, Tennessee has reported faster economic growth and now has higher per-capita income than Missouri. With continued strong growth, the gap will just keep widening.”

The difference between the two states? Tennessee doesn’t have a state income tax.

“Consider two people with identical characteristics, one in Missouri, the other in Tennessee. Suppose those two people were given identical work opportunities, so that they had access to the same machines and plant surroundings. For one hour of work, each produced the same amount, and was paid $20. Excluding federal taxes, the person in Missouri would take home $18.80 while the person in Tennessee would take home $20. The person in Tennessee will supply more labor because he realizes a higher return for his effort.

The difference in returns applies also to those owning machines, plants, and other equipment. Other things being equal, the after-tax return to capital in Tennessee is higher than in Missouri. Consequently, when deciding where to locate plants and equipment, Tennessee has an advantage. Together, the incentives to locate machines and people in Tennessee can account for why the Tennessee economy is performing better than the Missouri.

This is not to ignore other factors that affect the two states’ economic performance. But the comparison does suggest that tax structure does matters. Perhaps it is time to ask: What tax structure is in Missouri’s best interest?”

The answer is the MO Fair Tax.

Author: Anonymous

We’ve seen lawmakers try to mislead the public by giving deceiving names to legislation. Look out for anything called “Tax Reform.” But the Fair Tax Act of 2009 is an apt title for Missouri House Bill 814, sponsored by Rep. Ed Emery. Rep. Chris Kelly has a similar piece of legislation (simply called “Elimination of Income Tax”), House Bill 318. Both bills legislation call for getting rid of the state’s individual and corporate income tax, along with the estate tax, and replacing them with a tax on retail and service transactions.

Both bills require a change in the constitution, which voters would have to approve.

The bill also would do away with the dozens of exemptions on the existing state sales tax, and tax credits would be phased out. Families would get a rebate, based on number of members and their poverty level.

For a lot of reasons, the fair tax make sense. An income tax acts as a drag on the economy because employers don’t like moving to states with income taxes and workers resent paying them. The result is lower productivity and fewer jobs. Eliminating the corporate income tax will spur business expansion. And the way the rebates are structured means poor families won’t pay a disproportionate share of the sales tax. That should hearten potential opponents like Jeannette Oxford, D-St. Louis, and Roman Lee LeBlanc, D-Kansas City.

Both are concerned that the bills would heap more taxes on the poor. But that’s not the case.

The bills, which are in the House Tax Reform Committee, also shouldn’t be viewed as partisan. While Emery is a Republican from Lamar, Kelly is a Democrat from Columbia. Oxford and LeBlanc should join their party colleague and get behind a truly fair tax. 

Author: Emily Iles

On Monday, March 2nd, 2009, legislators and citizens gathered for a press conference held by Missouri Senator Jim Lembke to discuss his new bill to lift the deed restriction that restrict Charter schools from purchasing abandoned St. Louis public schools.
 
The press conference took place at vacant Scullin Elementary School, across the street from City Academy, a private school opened in 2005.  This corner illustrates the problem posed by deed restrictions that do not allow private, parochial or Charter schools to purchase and reuse these buildings as educational entities.  
 
Scullin Elementary school was built in 1908, and is still a beautiful building with a marble staircase and new playground equipment, though paint is chipping off the windows. As the press conference was being set up, a maintenance worker was fixing the boarded-up front door; according to him, they had had break-ins recently.
 
Senator Lembke, Senator Jeff Smith, Representative T.D. El-Amin, Senator Jane Cunningham and Representative Tishaura Jones spoke of concerns about crime, property values, about the dozens on public schools on the market, and the communities that were once anchored by them.
 
Lembke’s bill hopes to fix a number of problems.  First, these buildings were paid for by taxpayers for the purpose of educating children.  Prohibiting them from continued use as school buildings is contrary to the designation of those tax dollars.  St. Louis Public Schools will additionally face a $35 million budget shortfall this year, and many communities and taxpayers are wondering why the Special Administrative Board would cling obstinately to restrict sale to the most likely buyers of these vacant buildings—charter schools.  The number of closed school buildings in St. Louis is expected to add 17 more buildings this year to the 22 schools already closed and sitting empty.  
 
The second concern is for neighborhoods.  An empty school building does nothing to improve a neighborhood, but it can do a lot to tear it down.  For neighborhoods already struggling, an empty building brings more potential for crime and vandalism.  It brings dangerous conditions as the building falls into disrepair.  It can drastically devalue nearby homes. But most importantly, it leaves a hole in the community.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Welcome back.  Now that you’re all up to date on the Democratic Carnahan clan, let’s go over the other controlling force in Missouri; the Republican Blunts.

To be perfectly honest, it wasn’t easy to find information on the Blunts. Most of the information obviously surrounded Matt and Roy.  However, the family’s political history goes back much further than Roy. So here’s what information is available on the power-house family’s early days.

Despite the many websites viewed in order to gather information on Leroy Blunt, none of the information provided dates for Leroy Blunt’s political career. We do know however, that Roy Blunt’s father was a Missouri State Legislator. Prior to serving as a state legislator, Blunt’s father, Leroy, was a member of school and city councils. Roy learned about politics and getting involved in the community from his father and later when on to pass whatever message his father gave him onto his kids.

Roy Blunt’s political history, because it’s still going on, is easier to track than his father’s.  Roy Blunt’s political journey began in 1973 as the Greene County Clerk.  Then in 1984 Roy was elected as Missouri’s Secretary of State.  After serving as Missouri’s Secretary of State, Roy returned to his education background and served as president to his alma mater Southwest Baptist University. He returned to politics in 1996 when he was elected to the United States Congress.  Roy is still serving in Congress today and recently announced his plan to run to fill Kit Bond’s seat in the U.S. Senate. He will be running against Robin Carnahan is the ultimate Missouri power family showdown.

Like the Carnahan family, two generations of politicians just didn’t seem to be enough.  So Matt Blunt set out to continue his family’s political legacy.  Matt Blunt’s political career began as a state rep. for Greene County, and was later elected Secretary of the State of Missouri.  After his stint as Secretary of State he became Governor of the state of Missouri at the age of 33.  He was the second youngest governor ever elected in the United States.  Matt chose not to run for reelection in the 2008 election.

In addition to Matt, Roy Blunt’s other children also have their hands in politics.  Both Andy and Amy work as lobbyist in D.C., and there’s much speculation that they too will one day run for public office.

So, needless to say, the Blunt family isn’t going to disappear any time soon.  With Roy Blunt’s recent announcement that he will be running to fill Kit Bond’s (R-District 7) Senate Seat, their hold in Missouri is as strong as ever.  Though Missourians may be feeling a need for a change of pace, it’s not likely.

So who will fill the much desired seat?  Will it be Robin Carnahan, from the Democratic power family, or Roy Blunt, the Republican from an equally influential clan?  One thing’s for sure, this is going to be one hot race.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

One of the most common sayings heard throughout the 2008 presidential race was “No more Clintons or Bushs in the Whitehouse.”  On a smaller scale, by swapping out the names, the same can be said for the state of Missouri.  “No more Blunts and no more Carnahans.”

So in light of the above sentiment, here is a little history on how long these two families have been heavily influencing the great state of Missouri.

The Carnahan family has held prominent state positions since…ready for this…1945 (Picture Nazis and you’ll be in the right era, and the right political arena.) when A.S.J. Carnahan was elected to Congress as a Democratic representative for Missouri’s 8^th Congressional District. A.S.J Carnahan passed away in 1968, but the Carnahan legacy didn’t end there. 

Next in line is A.S.J.’s son Melvin Eugene Carnahan.  His career in began in 1951 as a judge in Missouri’s Municipal Court. In 1963 he was a member in the Missouri State House of Representatives. He was elected to the Missouri State Senate in 1966 and 1968.  In 1981 Melvin (known as Mel) Carnahan became the Missouri State Treasurer, and then in 1989 became the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri.  His career hit its peak in when was elected Governor of Missouri in 1993. Mel Carnahan, in an event that most Missourians (including this former Missourian) remember clearly, died while in office in a plane crash in the year 2000 during his run to become a United States Senator.

Now, one would assume that because Governor Carnahan passed away in 2000, his political career would have ended.  However, surprisingly enough, one would be wrong.  Carnahan’s names was left on the election ballet, and he ended winning the Senate Seat.  In a move that is controversial to this day, Missouri literally elected a deceased man to office. The solution to this problem is where the next portion of the Carnahan family history begins. 

Jean Carnahan married into the political family in 1954. Though she had no political experience herself, as the wife of the former governor, she was appointed to fill her husband’s seat in the U.S. Senate in 2001.  Though she was appointed to the U.S. Senate her political career was short lived.  She spent a year in the U.S. Senate before disappearing from the political scene.

But yet again, the Carnahan family history didn’t end there. John Russell Carnahan,(Russ) the son of Jean and Mel, was elected as a Congressman in 2004. Russ Carnahan is still serving in Congress today.

Oh, did you think we were done with the Carnahans?  Me too.  I guess we were both wrong.  To bring us to the present political race, we now visit Robin Carnahan’s political career.

Robin Carnahan, granddaughter of A.S.J., daughter of Mel and Jean, and sister to Russ is running against Congressmen Roy Blunt in the 2010 Senate race for Kit Bond’s (R) District 7 seat.  Robin Carnahan is a lawyer and served as Secretary of State for Missouri.

The Carnahan/Blunt showdown is destined to be one of the hottest Senatorial races in the nation. To view background info on Roy Blunt, click here.

Full Bill list can be found here: http://www.statesurge.com/states/26-missouri-legislation

Author: Sarah Riordan

Ladies and gentlemen, Congress has a new bill proposing a bailout plan for their…well…bailout plan. According to a recent CBS poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the financial crisis was handled. Perhaps this is because unlike our trusted legislators, the American people foresaw a future where Congress would be suffering the consequences of a hasty decision.

Diane Feinstein’s new bill, S.3698, is one of many of these types of bills we can expect to see in the near future. In S.3698, Feinstein is clearly attempting to reform the bailout plan. To give the senator some credit, the bill she is proposing is unfortunately necessary. The 5-page proposal simply states that the money given as a result of the bailout should not be used for frivolous expenses. Examples of such expenses listed in the bill are lobbying, donating to political parties, renovating offices, and the purchasing of corporate jets.

The issue with this bill isn’t the content, but the reason that it’s necessary. Decisions regarding the law should never be made in haste. Though an economic crisis is cause for a hard decision, it’s certainly not cause for a rushed one. In the long run, Congress simply created for themselves a situation in which they’re continually backtracking. The sad truth is, the first bailout plan was made in haste, and not well thought out. Therefore, Feinstein has to go back and fill in what’s missing. To think that the original plan didn’t spell out how this money can be used is incredibly disturbing. To state the obvious, all Americans are taxpayers. As a result, 700 billion of your money was given away. As taxpayers, we should all question Congress’s decision, and the apparent lack of regulation placed on the money. Imagine a business buying a luxury jet for their employees with the money from thousands of college students working and paying taxes just to get an education. Why didn’t the original bailout plan include these spending restrictions? Why didn’t Congress think about these possible scenarios before giving out hundreds of billions of your dollars?

If a business fails to meet the restrictions listed in the bill, Feinstein proposes some possible consequences. The primary punishment is a hefty fine of up to $100,000. This is rather humorous, because it begs the question “can the bailout money be used to pay the fine?” If so, what’s the point of the fine? Nowhere in the bill did it state what money should be used to pay the $100,000. So essentially, the government is just getting a refund check. Perhaps they should refund the actual people this money belongs to; us!

Feinstein’s bill should be passed. Passing bills of this type is worthwhile and tragically necessary. I’m certain Senator Diane Feinstein won’t be the only member of Congress proposing restrictions on bailout funds. In the future, Congress should be more careful before spending our money. Every citizen can agree that Congress’ main duty is to protect the American people and their assets. This duty does not include making hasty and potentially harmful decisions.

Author: Sarah Riordan

The latest political fad and tax-payer dollars are like thunder thighs and miniskirts; they should just not be allowed to mix.

Olympia Snowe’s recent bill is another attempt by Washington to follow the trends and “go green.” The bill, S.3682, proposes that grants ranging from $25 thousand to $1 million be dispersed to small businesses that show a desire to produce green products. The kinds of products being produced aren’t specified, but as long as it says green, Congress says go.

Snowe is no stranger to energy bills. She paired up with Senator John Kerry in early 2008 to promote another bill encouraging small businesses to be more energy efficient. According to senate.gov, Snowe even stated in an interview that she was ashamed and surprised by the Bush administration’s lack of interest in the energy crisis.

Though the bill sounds good on the surface, the fact that it simply sounds good is exactly the point. It’s pleasing to the ear, but essentially does nothing. Going green is a fad, and with little fool-proof research done on green products, Washington should not be throwing tax-payer money at something so new.

The main problem however, is the bill itself. There are two stages in the proposed bill. Stage one offers grants ranging from $25 thousand to $250 thousand. Phase two ups the grants to a range of $250 thousand to $1 million. In order to reach phase two however, you have to pass phase one. Bureaucrats, (which are in no short supply in Washington) will decide if the business has used the phase one funding effectively and deserves to move on to phase two and receive more money. The arbitrariness of how this will be decided is also problematic. What standards will be used to measure the effectiveness of stage one?

The problem with this plan is that the bill is striving to give incentive to already existing businesses to turn to selling more energy efficient products. Certainly, most honest businessmen would tell Snowe that even $250 thousand dollars isn’t nearly enough to retool an entire company into an eco-friendly utopia. The $1 million might be doable, but this doesn’t come until phase two. Now if you don’t have enough money to turn your business around using the phase one grant, then chances are, you won’t be approved for the larger grant that comes with phase two. As a result, the taxpayer’s money will be going out for phase one, but will end there.

Ultimately, this bill is yet another sad attempt to try and make it seem like Congress is doing something about the current energy crisis. If something is going to be done, it has to be carried out on a much larger scale. Giving a few select businesses insufficient funds is going to do nothing but waste the taxpayer’s hard-earned money. If Congress wants to make our country more energy independent, how about not following the latest green fad, and start putting the taxpayer’s money toward something more along the lines of serious research into alternative fuel? Then our money won’t be going toward a fad, but a long-term commitment to bettering our nation’s future.

Author: Jared Fallon

At a time when the United States is looking to greatly increase social welfare programs and overall increased government involvement, a large group of legislators are looking to make beer cheaper for all of us (finally Congress is getting the right idea). H.R.1610, originally introduced by Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), has a staggering 240 co-sponsors, totaling over 50% of House members. Most people agree with the notion that it’s hard to find politicians that don’t drink, and bills such as this can begin to provide evidence to help make the case.

Earl’s 240 member army consists of a wide range of both republicans and democrats, all behind one of the shortest bills to ever be introduced in the House. The bill’s official text is barely over one page long, offering a genius solution based on pure simplicity: amending the IRS Code of 1986 in order to reduce the beer tax before the 1990 tax increase took place. The bill officially cuts the overall tax by 50%, making it a more viable option for the American public to get liquid bread at a discounted rate 7 days out of the week. Cheers to you Congress-hopefully we can sing 100 bottles of beer on the wall AND save money soon. 

Author: Jared Fallon

One of the topics everyone recognizes but prefers not to talk about is beginning to emerge as a part of the forefront of US social movements. Rumors of increased Nazi activity in the states are beginning to surface and need to be addressed head-on before the situation becomes difficult to reverse. Amidst recent historical presidential results, the group may find itself seeing higher levels of interest than experienced in recent times. The most recent rally administered by the National Socialist Movement was last Saturday, November 8, in mid-Missouri. The rally was initially supposed to take place in the city of Columbia, but after being denied a city permit the group of 63 moved 30 minutes south to Jefferson City, the state’s capital.

For being in the middle of the Bible Belt with a strong Catholic presence, the rally attracted a surprisingly large amount of bystanders. Area law enforcement officials were on full staff in a fashion rarely experienced before, preparing for the violence that is frequently encouraged within such rallies. According to eye witnesses, spectators were surrounded by the parties’ workers yelling vile sentences from the crowd too vulgar to repeat here, trying to instigate violence in the attempt to encourage bystanders to feel the supposed power of the Nazi movement. Events such as this should also draw attention to suspicions surroudning the United State’s recent military decision to bring home the 3rd infantry division from Iraq to be stationed for on-call federal response within the states. The yearlong post began last month with occurrences of natural or manmade emergencies or disasters, including terrorist attacks. Growing movement activity such as this now has the possibility of being met with Taser-tested, Iraqi War-prepared soldiers.

There are several proposals in the House and Senate that deserve to be encouraged more in the hope of preventing the developing Nazi movement from growing. S.963, a plan to “authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to educational organizations to carry out educational programs about the Holocaust”, would help underscore such developments. The bill is sponsored by Robert Menendez (D-NJ). Such proposals would help provide a stronger foundation of historical understanding to our nation’s most vulnerable population. Despite the plan’s $10 million cost, such programs have been found successful in the past as a part of preventive measures.

Another proposal, H.R.6094, seeks to hold surviving Nazi war criminals accountable for previous activities and atrocities in World War II by encouraging foreign governments to coordinate and prosecute such people. Thus far the bill has not received any support outside its sponsor, Steve Israel (D-NY). Aside from the bill’s stated intentions of helping achieve justice for victims of the Holocaust, acknowledging active government coordination against remaining Nazis around the world would help the situation in the US as well. If broadcasted effectively, the action would provide a subtle, historically-based deterrent for the National Socialist Movement at little or no monetary cost to taxpayers.

It is truly amazing to consider how little we as humans learn from the past. The sheer lack of historical acknowledgment on the part of the US Nazi movements’ members is both an atrocity in of itself and a harsh reminder that there are still a number of people seemingly guarded from reason. Such group’s members show a profoundly immature lack of appreciation for sanctity of human life and civil rights amidst a time when America’s minorities have been given increasingly equal representation. Immigrants and cultural diversity have shaped America’s history to one of the largest extents. It is not as if we do not have sufficient historical occurrences and evidence from which to draw clear signals against such movements – action must be taken now before it grows into anything more than the unintelligent, unrespectable, and wretched group of small, thick skulled supporters it is today.

When words do not begin to suffice, a brief photo journey into the political realm of movements past can help shape the gravity of such situations:

Author: Jared Fallon

It seems that increasing oil revenues is the only reliable component of the US corporate world we can depend on. 2008 has brought some of the most challenging oil prices America has ever endured and yet oil companies continually make increasingly greater profits. This will probably come as no surprise, but needs to be stated: the second quarter of this year has again proved itself to be the most profitable in history for Big Oil. The leader of the Western six pack – Exxon Mobil – raked in an excess of $1.7 billion, surpassing its own records to yet again have the title as the highest-ever quarterly profits earner for an American firm. Bravo Exxon Mobile – none of us saw it coming.

For the most part, there are not many pending bills on the legislation front that attempt to provide additional regulation for oil companies and/or oil price increases. The central bill of interest does not seem too likely to pass although it would be fun to watch. The bill’s only advocate so far is the sponsor – Janice D. Schakowsy (D-IL) – a risky position for a lone politician to take against such an influence-packed group of monoliths. Her bill – H.R.6653 – aims “To provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices,” H.R.6653 proposes a 4 part strategy that denies oil companies tax deductions, conforms tax treatment for foreign tax credits, imposes a windfall profits tax on major oil companies, and establishes an Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund. In addition Schakowsy wants to amend the Sherman Act to prevent foreign states to act with each other to limit the production of oil, set energy prices, or take any actions in restraining free trade of energy sources. This bill will be interesting to watch (and Schakowsky’s future endorsements for that matter) – follow this link to find the most up-to-date information on this and other pieces of pending legislation available on the web.

Missouri is only ranked 47^th in the country in regards to higher education funding; students struggle with paying alternative education loans because federal scholarships, grants, and loans do not cover the insurmountable cost of colleges and universities around the state. Graduating from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 1980, U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof is familiar to the numerous problems within higher education programs. He wants to help fix these kinks by better equipping and supplying school administration, which will give more students the opportunity to reach higher education and, in turn, will boost Missouri’s economy as a whole.

One plan Hulshof is a part of is the establishment of the ‘Missouri Prosperity Initiative.’ It is a partnership that will strengthen programs within science and math as well as designing new programs for more efficient research. He believes that the specific branches of study that will be most effective to the state of Missouri are those in math, engineering, biotechnology, and chemistry. Better funding is an absolute necessity for students studying in these areas in order to thrive. This initiative includes higher accountability measures and increased funding for those in need of scholarships.

Hulshof also supports the ‘Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative.’ This program has raised $335 million for Missouri’s higher education for the benefit of students without raising the state tax. He believes that through good administration and the feedback of the schools that receive this new support many goals will be accomplished; he truly understands education is something worth investing in.

Evidence of Hulshof‘s interest in education reform is enhanced by the fact that he has recently been taking the time to go to colleges and universities around the state to speak and share his visions. This month one of the colleges he visited was Hannibal La-Grange College in Hannibal, Missouri – partaking in the 150^th sesquicentennial celebration the college was holding. Hulshof was the guest speaker and shared with the students his ideas while congratulating the institution for its efforts. Hulshof stated, “I’m less concerned with what my approval rating is going to be at the end of my term, but graduation rates, how many new start-up businesses have we had, how many plant expansions have we had, how have our math scores improved, how about higher education are we making progress.” He also spoke on a more personal note, telling the audience of his childhood, and how he is the, and I quote, “black sheep” of his family by following a career in politics.

Also, although Hulshof is putting much emphasis on higher education, he has not forgotten K-12. He has in mind to hire better math and science teachers around the state as well as make it easier for a student to apply and study at technical and community colleges. He does not want someone to miss out on an education due to financial reasons. According to Hulshof, this is going to aid the economy of the entire 21^stcentury. For more information on legislative bills concerning higher education in Missouri, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

1. The founding fathers liked ganja

Dr. Burke of the American Historical Reference Society and consultant for the Smithsonian has found evidence to support the long standing claim that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson all either smoked or grew grass on their plantations.

2. Utah was the first state to ban marijuana

Amidst rising cannabis use by regional Mormons the church declared “the use of marijuana contrary to the Mormon religion” in 1915 and paved the way for America’s current prohibition.

3. Pot is the US’ biggest cash crop

Since 2006 weed has been more valuable to its growers that wheat and corn combined. US Pot production has increased tenfold in the past 25 years as California has emerged as the heaviest hitter, accounting for nearly one third of total US production. This has caused some people to believe that the US smokes the most, which brings us to:

4. Australia is the highest country in the world

It is estimated that the Aussies spend nearly double on cannabis every year than they do on total wine consumption. The next best Jacob’s Creek formula? 33% Cabarnet Sauvignon, 33% Syrrah, and 34% Cannabis.

5. Pending US legislation exits to legalize reefer

There are currently two of Barney Frank’s (D-MA) proposals that US Rastafarians would greatly appreciate. H.R.5842 hopes to make marijuana easily accessible for medical use while H.R.5843 seeks to “eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use…” So far the H.R.5842 has a surprising 23 cosponsors while the more risky proposal stands at 10. Do either of these bills stand a chance? We’ll have to see how they endure their current status of being held in committee status.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In less than a century, people advanced from horses and carriages to automobiles and airplanes. The turn of the century brought about a technological explosion with advancements emerging in every direction as demand for more efficient and swifter ways of doing things increased exponentially. Computers arrived with the internet not far behind, providing more fruitful ways to communicate across the boarder and file documents.

Unfortunately, Governor Palin does not show much of an opinion concerning the issue of technology and the internet. Perhaps it is not exactly high up on her priority list. As Governor, Sarah Palin record comes up short of incorporating any kind of technological policies. Nevertheless, Governor Palin has taken advantage of the internet some by creating an online training program for the workforce. The program, Alaska Career Ready, gives users the capacity to take a set of surveys to discover what abilities they have or may need for an assortment of preferred jobs. In addition, these users may select online courses for developing weak or under-skilled areas. This program allows for a faster and more efficient way for workers to evaluate their own skills and it provides a way to help them improve weaker areas. Despite these details, however, Governor Palin has not really taken any initiative on broadband policy. Unfortunately, Alaskans connect at a slow rate. She has also helped Alaskan residents’ access affordable healthcare through the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act. The act provides tele-medicine and tele-health initiatives that provide care to Alaska’s most remote residents. According to Palin, it is vital to the economy to improve and expand more efficient transportation.

Senator Joe Biden looks to have taken a bit more interest on the subject. Biden is a supporter of clean technology, co-sponsoring the Senate Bill 1177. The legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to establish a nationwide uniform air pollutant rigid program for the electric generating zone. In a 2006 hearing, Biden proved to be a skeptic of net neutrality as he questioned the need for preventative measures when no evidence presented itself. He believes that if everyone who felt those rights were being violated and were given a hearing, it would be impossible to handle every case. Senator Biden is also a strong supporter of copyright. In 2002, he asked the Justice Department to take a harsher position on copyright violation. A noteworthy effort on Biden’s part is the PROTECT Act of 2003, which made it a felony to forge keys to use for counterfeit software or to operate unauthorized computer programs. He also co-founded and co-chaired the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus. Other noteworthy legislation on Biden’s repertoire includes S.1738 and S.223. Biden sponsored Senate Bill S.1738 to increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, among other things. S. 223, which he co-sponsored, requires senate candidates to file designations, reports, and statements in electronic form. Senator Biden was also a challenger of the FISA reform bill, strongly opposing warentless wiretapping.

On one hand, we have the fresh face of Sarah Palin, who seems more concerned about oil than technological and internet issues. On the other hand, there is the well-known face of Senator Biden, who seems to have realized the importance of these issues. Who will have your vote?

Author: Jared Fallon

Thou shall not run very far if Tim Mahoney’s (D-FL) newest legislation to attempt to “strengthen procedures regarding detention and removal of aliens” is passed. The Federal Representative’s H.R. 6843 was just referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 9, 2008 and contains several clear, but bold provisions regarding America’s legally confused illegal situation. One of the most pointed sections of the proposed legislation allows the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability to “detain an alien beyond the 90-day period authorized…if the Secretary determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future;” Does this text ring a bell concerning past legislation in any way?

It could very well remind people of the equally government power substantiating Patriot Act that allows for the same sort of unchecked government action in regards to detainment. These sorts of policies allow for an increasingly greater amount of unquestioned control to be given to the government if enough reason is “determined” by government officials. H.R.6843 mirrors the Patriot Act in more ways than one. When reading through the proposed bill terms such as if “there is reason to believe that the release of the alien would threaten the national security of the United States;” and “that the release of the alien would likely have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States;” can be found in abundance. Is this the sort of hard-line policies that America wants to help tackle our growing illegal alien situation? To see the official text or to find updates about this bill follow this link.

The House Committee on Financial Services is currently reviewing H.R.6864, a proposal to “prohibit golden parachute payments for former executives and directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” The bill is being sponsored by Steve King (R-IA) and already has 27 cosponsors – a significant number due to the fact that the bill was first introduced in the House on September 10. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and what tactics the politically-charged former directors and executives will utilize. The power packed political influence the members have is alarming, ranging from the former Secretary of the Senate to the former director of the FBI under President Clinton’s administration.

It seems this Presidential election will bring about some firsts in United States history: a black man as president or a woman as vice president. The announcement of the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as McCain’s Vice President has definitely evoked a strong reaction throughout the nation. Perhaps that is what the “maverick” was looking for? It has been highly noted that Palin lacks experience with only two years as Governor and before that a Mayor. Despite her lack of experience in foreign policy and such, Palin does have much experience with the general public, especially those in Alaska. What the real question we should be asking does not involve experience, but where does she stand on the issues.

Senator McCain announced Palin as someone “who can best help me shake up Washington”. Palin took office on December 4, 2006 as the first woman Governor of Alaska. As Governor, her top priorities have been transportation development, public health and safety, education and workforce development and resource development. The Palin Administration invested five billion dollars in state savings, implemented the Senior Benefits Program, and overhauled education funding. Governor Palin is well known for her advocacy in drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska, specifically the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Ironically, McCain and Palin have differing views concerning the topic. McCain opposes drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, while his opponent Obama supports the idea. Governor Palin agrees with Obama about completion of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. Also, Palin fought against legislation, sponsored by Senator Lieberman, which intended to designate the Artic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. She created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office, which provides oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment and facilities.

Although a bit of an outsider in the Republican Party, Palin has shown fearlessness throughout her years as Mayor and as Governor. She has gained a reputation of political purity, trying to clean up the mess of corruption. For instance, she resigned as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission due to the deficiency of ethics moral principles in other Republican members. Palin left frustrated after her complaints of conflict of interests and legal violations within the committee. Governor Palin has served as chair of other committees as well. She currently serves as chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, promoting the preservation and effective recovery of domestic oil and natural gas while still protecting the environment, public safety, and health. Recently, she was appointed chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resource Committee. The committee pursues legislation to guarantee state needs are considered as federal policy is created in the areas of energy, environmental protection, agriculture, etc. She has passed two major pieces of legislation to overhaul state ethic laws and a completive process to construct a gas pipeline. In addition, Palin submitted the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. The legislation is to act as a medium to get natural gas pipelines built and bring state’s extensive gas reserves to the market.

John McCain is known as the “maverick” in this campaign for presidency. Perhaps that is the very reason he chose Governor Palin to be his running mate. Together, they may indeed be the ticket to shake up Capital Hill and even the nation. “Leaders don’t wait. They shape their own frontiers. The bigger the challenge, the greater the opportunity” – Anonymous.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Each of us takes for granted everyday such simple things as driving to the store or flying towards that summer destination.  We are surrounded by means of transportation, or should I say machines of transport everywhere we go. Today, prices are outrageous concerning these machines and regulations pop up everywhere. Nevertheless, without them, I believe we would not know what to do with ourselves. Bill SB 930 deals with these modes of transport and their regulations.

Under the bill, SB 930 states that materials purchased for the repair, maintenance, or manufacture of aircraft that are used as general carriers of people and property will be exempt from local and state sales tax. Along with this exemption, the Aviation Trust Fund has a new cap of $10 million that may be credited from generated jet fuel sales tax. The act also allows the use of $2 million from the Aviation Trust Fund to be employed towards the study and promotion of extended domestic or international commercial service and to aid sponsors who partake in the federally financed air service program supporting intrastate service. According to the act, there must be at least $6 million in the fund from the previous year before the fund can be utilized for the objectives mentioned above.

In addition to aviation, the bill recommends certain criteria for everyday road vehicles. The bill proposes a requirement for state patrol to establish a program that will certify local law enforcement concerning commercial motor vehicle laws. These measures are to meet any requirements established by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. As of January 1, 2009, only law enforcement officers who are certified may be able to conduct roadside inspections to determine compliance with commercial vehicle laws. However, those officers not certified in commercial vehicle laws can stop the vehicle if there is any visible defect that may cause harm to the public around them.

The act also proposes to remedy the latest Supreme Court ruling which asserted that a defendant’s previous plea of guilt may not be employed to enhance the penalty for the defendant’s new intoxication offense.  Under section 577.023, a previous verdict of guilt combined with a fine, imprisonment, and so forth may be treated as finding prior guilt for the purpose of enhancing punishment. Currently there is an ignition interlock device law for repeat DWI offenders. SB 930 aims for the law to be an administrative requirement that will be enforced by the Department of Revenue. Offenders must provide proof that their vehicles are equipped with these devices and the devices must be operational on all vehicles operated by the person for at least six months. The moral of this story is: Be Smart. Please don’t drink while driving.

In concluding, it is important to maintain and establish rules from the air to the ground. It is also our duty as citizens to recognize these rules and to stand by them.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Many people enjoy making a splash to beat the summer heat. On most occasions, if you do not own a pool and you aren’t going to the lake, people generally pay to go to a swimming facility.

House bill number 1341 proposes to establish what may be referred to as “Ethan’s Law”. This Ethan’s Law declares that any owner of a business-related, privately owned swimming pool is to maintain adequate insurance coverage. The owners of such swimming facilities will be required to register with the Department of Public Safety and provide proof that they do have the adequate insurance coverage. According to the act, the coverage must entail the amount of at least one million dollars per incident in the event of an injury or death.

Those that do not abide by Ethan’s Law will be subject to a civil penalty of $250 each day up to a maximum of $10,000 that the facility remains in operation with continued violation. Any owner of the facility will also be liable for the costs that may accrue by the state and political subdivision that enforce the law. For those that think they may get away without the mandatory insurance coverage, please beware. Any person who deliberately breaches Ethan’s Law is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.  What does that mean? Well, that means legal action will be taken and you may be shut down.

Under the bill, the Department of Public Safety as well as local law enforcement has the responsibility to enforce the regulations stated in HB 1341. Also, any insurance company providing coverage to these swimming facilities must inform the Department of Public Safety if the proprietor(s) decides to either terminate their coverage or fail to renew their coverage. Remember that ignorance isn’t an excuse.

Overview
The main issue involved in the use of marijuana for medical reasons can be summed up as follows: Do the medical benefits of properly prescribed marijuana to certain patients outweigh the medical risks thereof, and outweigh society’s legal, moral, ethical, religious and public health concerns? The U.S. Supreme Court found that it is not under the landmark case of Gonzales vs. Reich (below).

Marijuana has been used as an agent for medicinal purposes and for achieving euphoria since ancient times; it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 B.C. (5000 years ago). For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is illegality a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use.

The use of marijuana has been the source of criticism, racism and ridicule over the years, initiating an all out war against the substance by Uncle Sam. For instance Harry J. Anslinger, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930’s, made the following “observations”: “Marijuana smokers in the US are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others”; “Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its user’s insanity, criminality, and death”; “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” And “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother; Marijuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days”. The term “killer weed” was formerly used to describe marijuana, and was the title of a motion picture in the 1930’s. These and similar attitudes exist even today and act to form a societal prejudice against any use of the “drug”, including for beneficial medical purposes.

Medical use of marijuana has undergone many medically supervised clinical trials and it is generally accepted that treatment including marijuana has some positive medical value. The counter medical argument is that, while concedingly medically beneficial, too little is known about the possible negative effects of the over 400 chemicals contained in marijuana At this point that the trend would be to include marijuana in the treatment of some conditions including appetite stimulation in AIDS and cancer patients, relief from nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, pain relief, and increase in motor activity in cases of M.S., paraplegia, spasticity, and seizure disorders. It also lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma. More study is needed.

Four main issues comprise the debate on medical marijuana: (1) its role as a significant drug of abuse and the reluctance of policy makers to dissociate the potential harmful effects of recreational marijuana use from its potential therapeutic effects; (2) the wisdom of burning and inhaling the combustion products of a dried plant product as a valid therapeutic agent; (3) the view that smoked marijuana is not a unique therapeutic substance but rather represents an alternate, but more toxic, delivery vehicle for the active ingredient THC; and (4) the value of analyzing smoked marijuana’s potential medical use in the traditional manner of risk versus benefit in individual patients. The American Medical Association in its June 2001 report “concluded that marijuana should remain illegal but that further research should be done to verify its medical benefits and side effects.

For the most part, mainline religious denominations support the use of medical marijuana including The Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. Some or most of their collective views stem from the religious/moral duty to care for, and be compassionate to, the sick. “Legislators who give lip service to ‘moral values’ had better be consistent on the medical marijuana issue,” said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins six other major denominations explicitly supporting medical marijuana, while no denominations’ governing bodies have ever taken an official position against it .

The Courts have recognized “medical necessity” a valid defense only in cases involving religious organizations. The court rejected that defense in this case. The Supreme Court did support religious rights regarding drugs in a 2006 case. There, U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was constitutional and applied to the DEA. The DEA was required to return Schedule I drugs and related materials to the members of the UDV church and was required to meet the conditions of the Act regarding religious defense.

—State initiatives concerning medical marijuana—

The Federal law making marijuana illegal is called Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. The law makes it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess Schedule I drugs [marijuana]. States have since enacted laws making it legal to dispense, cultivate and/or use marijuana for medical purposes. Twelve states, including California, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Arizona and Vermont have enacted by statute or referendum the legalization for research and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only fifteen states have never had a positive medical marijuana law. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have symbolic medical marijuana laws, laws that support medical marijuana but do not provide patients with legal protection under state law.

In September 1999, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “medical necessity” is a valid defense against federal marijuana distribution charges, provided the distributor can prove that the patients it serves are seriously ill, face imminent harm without marijuana, and have no effective legal alternatives. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter Court).

—The United States Supreme Court Rules

Despite state legalization acts the United States Supreme Court (hereafter Court) overruled a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. [It may be noted here that the 9th Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court have been at odds for many years and the 9th Circuit is overruled by the Supreme Court more than any other]. The Supreme Court held that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Federal criminalization of the medical use of marijuana could be enforced by the Federal government irrespective of state law to the contrary (state laws were not repealed, only that Federal agents could arrest and prosecute those who distributed and/or used marijuana including for medicinal purposes; it was not unlawful for physicians to prescribe marijuana).

In its decision in Raich the Court framed the legal issue at the outset: “The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law”. This is called “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution This Clause has been used (many say over-used) throughout the Court’s history to regulate anything having to do with interstate (state to state) commerce. The test as to when the Clause allows the Court (Federal government) to regulate some aspect of commerce has become increasingly more liberal over the last 200 years to the point that the Court can invoke the clause just about any time it wants to expand the Federal government’s power to regulate.

Gonzales v Raich was a California case. The Court noted that California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. In 1913, California was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The proposition was designed to ensure that “seriously ill” residents of the State have access to marijuana for medical purposes, and to encourage Federal and State Governments to take steps towards ensuring the safe and affordable distribution of the drug to patients in need.

The facts before the Court were:
Plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson were California residents who suffered from a variety of serious medical conditions and had sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Compassionate Use Act. They are being treated by licensed, board-certified family practitioners, who have concluded, after prescribing a host of conventional medicines to treat respondents’ conditions and to alleviate their associated symptoms, that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment. Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Indeed, Raich’s physician believes that forgoing cannabis treatments would certainly cause Raich excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal.

Plaintiff Monson cultivates her own marijuana, and ingests the drug in a variety of ways including smoking and using a vaporizer. Respondent Raich, by contrast, is unable to cultivate her own, and thus relies on two caregivers, litigating as “John Does” (anonymous parties to the suit) to provide her with locally grown marijuana at no charge. These caregivers also process the cannabis into hashish and Raich herself processes some of the marijuana into oils, balms, and foods for consumption.

On August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came to Monson’s home. After a thorough investigation, the county officials concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful as a matter of California law. Nevertheless, after a 3-hour standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants.

Plaintiffs thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in that it prevented them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Raich and Monson described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana. Respondents claimed that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framer’s response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887.

Cases during this “new era” identified three general categories of regulation in which Congress is authorized to engage under its commerce power. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce. Third, Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The case here was decided pursuant to the third category.

The plaintiffs raised three main objections to Congress exercising its power under the facts of this case. First they argued that the fact that marijuana used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” can itself serve as a distinguishing factor exempting marijuana from Federal regulation. The Court countered that the CSA designated marijuana as contraband for any purpose by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses (apparently without any government initiated studies).

“Second, the plaintiffs’ argued that limiting the ability of a state to pass laws legalizing only marijuana use to marijuana possession and cultivation should put the state’s law Federal congressional reach. However, the Court found that the “Supremacy Clause” in the constitution unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail [called preemption]. It said that it is beyond argument that federal power over commerce is “‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants, however legitimate or dire those necessities may be”.

Plaintiffs nonetheless contended that their activities were not “an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme” because they had been “isolated by the State of California, and are policed by the State of California,” and thus remain “entirely separated from the market” (commerce clause). The Court responded: “The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected”.

The Court also said that the effect on interstate commerce would be substantial if the California law was to remain. It would allow illegal activity to occur by transporting marijuana across state lines for both legal and illegal purposes.

—Conclusion—
Basically, the Court said that as long as Congress’ inclusion of the medical use of marijuana in its list of banned drugs was “rational”, the Federal law preempted state law to the contrary. In other words, it seems the centralized Federal government is better able to regulate the affairs of all 50 states by Thus, by the Court’s ruling, in California the marijuana distribution centers are legal under state law but illegal under Federal law. Many still operate but many have been raided and shut down by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

The court’s decision makes the Federal government justified in sweeping and broad criminalization statutes, trumping whatever the people of the state decide is more beneficial for them. Although the Supremacy of Federal law over state law has long ago been established, there seems a determined effort in cases over the years to protect this power rather than relinquish it. If those who are subject to the criminalizing law were arch criminals themselves that would be one thing. However, most are otherwise and many times providing their services for the bettering of medical care (and of course their pocketbooks as is any capitalistic business). Although medical research has not conclusively proven the medical use of marijuana to be more beneficial than conventional drug therapies, there is little direct evidence that it is not helpful in many ways or that that its harmful effects out-weigh its benefits; or that its benefits should not be the subject of more clinical testing. Where the price of some drug therapies exceed the price of marijuana by multiples, and with the economic outcry about increasing healthcare costs (substantially influenced by profits of drug companies) why not consider the naturally occurring medicinal plants, such as marijuana, as an alternative treatment for those whom conventional therapies are ineffective.

I keep hearing that this country is being run by Republicans, but where are they?  The PATRIOT act demands more and more civil rights given up to the shadiest secret agencies of the U.S. government in the name of security, a bill that would have been called Communist in the 1980’s and Fascist in the 1940’s is now being forced upon us by the party who is supposed to defend personal freedoms.

What happened to being against big government?  How many of my friends have argued against FDR because he doubled the size of government, yet no single individual since FDR has done more to create a large wasteful mess of expanding government than President George W. Bush, creating entirely new departments and then creating departments with the sole purpose of making sure two other departments communicate.

Huh?

And things seem to keep getting stranger and stranger.  While Republicans are supposed to be adamant about balancing the budget and not spending money that belongs to the American people: Halliburton is to get paid all of its disputed charges, the deficit continues to grow (and the bills designed to “cut the deficit” only cut the rate at which it grows), and yet they are giving write-offs to oil companies who are doubling their all time record profits every single quarter.

As for the whole moral aspect: Tom DeLay, Karl Rove . . . there’s a whole list and two plus two just isn’t equaling what it should.

And our defenders of the Constitution now what to re-define “cruel and unusual punishment,” and severely limit freedom of the press, especially political speech, the very kind the founding fathers demanded for our nation.  What is going on here?

What happened to the Republicans who wanted a balanced budget, thought the ends did not justify any means (after all, they ran on a platform of honesty and morality), and would never allow the government unlimited power over its own people?  What happened to these people, and who has taken their place?  Sadly, if both the Republicans and Democrats were what they used to be, maybe we wouldn’t have such a mess now.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Summer has finally arrived, bringing the typical blazing hot days and the occasional weather emergency. This is the time of the year to crank up the A/C, go to the lake, and relax. Hopefully, there are some of you out there that will scribble, in your demanding schedules, time to look at what concerns and issues are being brought up in your Missouri legislation. Since hotter days are on the horizon, it is only appropriate to mention the act SB720.

In section 393.108 of SB720, there is the establishment of the hot weather rule similar to bills SB 11 and SB 955. The hot weather regulation is applied to the period between June 1st and September 30th. Let’s just hope there is a cold weather rule, otherwise electricity only runs a half year guarantee and wouldn’t that be ghastly? Under the rule, providers of natural gas and electricity are prohibited from disconnecting their services to residents on those days when going to the mailbox seems like crossing the desert. Whatever did we do without our current A/C systems and ice makers? I feel a little spoiled.

Coinciding with the hot weather plan, the Utilicare Stabilization Fund no longer has a five million dollar cap, but is subject to appropriations each fiscal year. Providers of heating or cooling can sink their teeth into $200 more from the $600 to the $800 allowed from the Utilicare Stabilization Fund. This will be only on the behalf of eligible households. The act also requires that the Department of Social Services utilize a portion of the funds to the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program.

Sections 393.171 and 1150 of the bill deal with the construction of electric plants. The Public Service Commission may sanction the production of an electric plant after it has been constructed; however, no approval or permit will deteriorate any private suits or claims against the constructed electric plant and any costs will be prohibited to be recovered from ratepayers. Any plants illegally constructed after the date of August 28, 2008, will be subject to awarding triple the amount of damages to the plaintiff’s real estate with the addition of any fees accrued in a claim.

Finally, bill SB720 creates the Manufacturer Responsibility and Consumer Convenience Equipment Collection and Recovery Act. Try saying that 20 times in a row. What all does this entail? Manufacturers, in order to sell their computers in Missouri, are obligated to utilize recovery plans for the collection and recycling of their obsolete equipment. The plans must be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources. Also, manufacturers must label their equipment. If violations occur, the Department of Natural Resources and the Attorney General are given the authority to assess penalties.

Bill SB720 may seem minuscule in the great scheme of things; however, it is critical to understand that every piece of legislation is important and does affect each one of us. If it wasn’t, then electrical companies and manufacturers could do whatever they pleased.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

I would like to write one word: Agriculture. When one thinks of agriculture, images of tractors going five miles per hour down the road or illegal aliens working the fields may spring to mind. Agriculture is the unseen, straggling trade that works to produce the food items that we need and want as well as much more.

The bill SB 931 adapts specifications concerning the management of agricultural incentives and agendas. Under the act, the Qualified Beef tax credit and the Family Farm Breeding Livestock Loan tax credit will be subject to the reporting requirements in the Tax Credit Accountability Act for agriculture. The bill also states that any new or used machinery or equipment used for forestry products shall be exempt from local and state sales tax.

According to the bill, Missouri supports the idea of a voluntary animal identification program; however, it prohibits the Missouri Department of Agriculture from authorizing building registration under the U.S Department of Agriculture’s National Animal Identification System program unless it is explicitly approved to do so. If theses conditions prove to disturb marketing of Missouri Livestock, the governor may just waive it all away. SB 931 states under sections 348.230-348.235 that the State of Missouri may pay the first years interest on any relevant deposit program loan for the acquisition of dairy cows. The section also describes any awards a dairy business planning grants may be given.

As people look to agriculture for their beef and other meats, they also see agriculture in the green light. What is greener than alternative energy sources, such as biomass? The bill creates an income tax credit for the costs of constructing property for alternative fuel and its users. These tax credits shall not exceed twenty percent of direct costs. Each year as taxes are claimed, the claims that may be made must not exceed $3,000,000 the first year and subsequently drop each year thereafter.

Under the law, qualified fuel ethanol manufacturers are eligible for monthly grants. SB 931 asserts that fuel ethanol may be produced from biomass that is qualified by the Missouri Agricultural and Small Business Development Authority (or MASBDA for short). Grant incentives awarded for fuel ethanol created from biomass are approved between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019. Unfortunately, it only applies to two producers. Isn’t that just a drag?

The images of agriculture before were just the stereotypical of what one thinks farming is all about. However, times have called upon agriculture to spread its wings and provide ways to create a better environment. As the need for environmental protection increases, we may all look to our agricultural producers in a new light as they may pave the way to use our Earth as a renewable source of limitless energy. With this in mind, we must remember that laws concerning agriculture are important and agriculture itself is vitally important.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Eat Healthy. Get up and Exercise. Live Healthy. These are things that we attempt to accomplish and that other’s strive to help us achieve every day. Perhaps we are not always the healthiest person on the bloc; however, we strive to not get sick so we won’t have to go visit that doctor who never seems to diagnose us right. Furthermore, it costs money. Despite all of this, Missouri legislation attempts to create a working health system that at least pleases most of us.

The act SB1283 establishes the Missouri Health Cabinet. The purpose of the Cabinet is to ensure that public policy within the state relating to health is developed so health services are designed, distributed, and administered in a holistic and incorporated manner in order to improve Missourian health. The Cabinet will consist of various state members such as the Governor, the director of the departments of Health and Senior Services, etc. Also, a Health Policy Council will be created to assist the cabinet and will replace the State boards of Health and Senior Services.

The bill also launches the Insure Missouri program, which is to offer health care coverage to low-income working citizens. The maximum participation point depends on funds appropriated and each eligible individual may have an established care account if they can provide payments for their participation. As the saying goes, zilch is free.  Effective as of January 1, 2009, there will be modifications within the eligibility restrictions and quality obligations for the Missouri Health Insurance Pool. Under these modifications, the lifetime benefit cap is increased to $2 million while the Pool must offer one plan that meets the criteria for Medicare and Medicaid for uninsurable persons qualified under the Insure program.

But wait, there’s more! SB1283 requires that hospitals report whenever someone (or more specifically, a physician) makes a big mistake, such as accidentally leaving a scalpel in a patient or death due to medication error. Is that a lawsuit, I smell? These big mistakes are to be reported to the patient safety organization, which will publish an annual report providing details to the public such as the number and rate per patient. For some reason, the thought of a surgeon leaving his scalpel in my body makes me a little queasy. Perhaps hospitals should screen perspective doctors for forgetfulness. In addition, the act creates the Missouri Free Clinics Fund, which is to be used by Missouri Free clinics (we have free clinics?) to enhance infrastructure and strengthen their sustainability so they may assist a larger quantity of people more efficiently.

SB1283 highlights many topics relating to health care. Excluding the issues mentioned above, the bill addresses various other things such as Small Employer Health Insurance Availability Act and Cafeteria Plans. It is necessary to address health care because it is a vastly important topic within Missouri and the nation, especially during a time with the need for change.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

Senate Joint Resolution 33, sponsored by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) on May 21, 2008, recognizes the efforts of Ohio’s Departments of Mental Health and of Alcohol & Drug Services, in addressing the stigma associated with mental health and substance abuse disorders. The resolution pertains to, and recognizes, those American and Ohio citizens affected by mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders, as well the plethora of exceptional costs incurred through the neglect of treatment, and continued suffering, of American and Ohio citizens. Furthermore, this resolution recognizes the results of treatment, and of subsequent cost benefits. This resolution further recognizes the reality of the stigma attached with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders. The resolution has been forwarded to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The resolution points to the fact that 54,000,000 Americans suffer from a mental illness, and another 26,000,000 live with addiction. Recently within the entirety of the United States, only 10.8% of those suffering from mental illness or addiction received treatment. The resolution further recognizes the social and economic costs incurred through loss of productivity, crime, and other issues associated with mental illnesses and addiction. The estimated costs per year of untreated mental illnesses amounts to $100,000,000,000, while the costs of untreated addiction is $500,000,000,000. The Surgeon General has reported that mental illness and substance abuse account for one fifth of work days missed. This exceeds the combined burden of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

While recognizing the numbers of Americans affected by mental illness and addiction, and the further economic and social costs associated with neglecting treatment, this resolution recognizes the proven results of treatment. The resolution states that 70% to 90% of individuals with a mental illness or substance use disorder find a reduction in symptoms, and subsequent improvement in quality of life, from treatment. Furthermore, treatment has proven to cut substance use in half, reduce crime by upwards of 80%, and reduce arrests by some 64%. Within Ohio, the cost-benefit stands that for every dollar invested and spent on treatment there is an economic savings of 7$ through reduction of crime, child abuse and neglect, homelessness, and lost work productivity.

Whole focusing on the numbers who suffer, the costs, and the benefits of treatment, the resolution also recognizes the complications and reality of the stigma attached to mental illness and addiction. The resolution points to the damage resulting from mental illness and addiction stigmas in such ways as inadequate insurance coverage for health services, fear and mistrust towards those who suffer from such illnesses and disorders, and ultimately in the potential of family and friends to turn their backs on their loved ones. In point of fact, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration has found that individuals would rather admit to a petty crime than to spending time in a psychiatric facility. Furthermore, the Surgeon General stated that stigma towards mental illness and addiction can no longer be tolerated if there is to be a reduction in the burdens placed on society by mental illness, improvement in actual access to care for those suffering from mental illness and addiction, and ultimately in achieving knowledge of the brain, mind, and human behavior that is urgently needed to combat the multiplicity of problems associated with mental illness and addiction. The resolution also recognizes that the American Medical Associated, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute on Alcohol & Addiction all concur that addiction is a chemical change in the brain.

In concluding, the Senate and House of Representative’s jointly recognize that stigma fosters discrimination and discourages victims from seeking treatment, and encourages efforts to increase awareness of the existence and impact of mental illness and substance abuse disorder stigmas. Further, it encourages Americans to work towards overcoming the stigma associated with mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Finally, it recognizes Ohio’s “Think Outside the Stigma Campaign”.

AUTHOR: Ashton Cope

With all the hype of the upcoming presidential elections, itʼs easy to overlook the
upcoming state-wide elections. In November, all state-wide elected officials,
representatives, half of the senators, and the U.S. representatives will be up for reelection.
Among the notable candidates for governor are Democratic Attorney General Jay
Nixon, Republican State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, and Republican U.S.

Representative Kenny Hulshof. Prior to current Governor Matt Bluntʼs announcement
that he would not be running for re-election, the outcome of the race seemed to clearly
be in Nixonʼs favor. After that January announcement, however, the outcome is
suddenly unclear. While Nixon had in essence been campaigning for several years, his
campaign had mostly been based on anti-Blunt.

The office of lieutenant governor hardly seems as heated and will probably come
down to Republicans vs. Democrats. Among the many contestants, incumbent Lt.
Governor Peter Kinder is running again (heʼs changed his mind since announcing that
he was running for governor) on the Republican ticket and Representative Sam Page of
Creve Coeur on the Democratic.

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has filed for re-election, running against two
unknowns.

Given that the office of State Treasurer is now incumbent-free, Republican
Senator Brad Lager of Savannah and Democratic Representative Clint Zweifel of
Florissant are facing off.

The office of Attorney General is also open with Jay Nixon running for governor,
and has perhaps received the most press. With only one Republican candidate
(President Pro Tem of the Senate Mike Gibbons) and three known equally matched
Democratic candidates, this election is up in the air. Senator Chris Koster of
Harrisonville, a recent Democratic-convert, has announced candidacy, along with
Representatives Margaret Donnelly of St. Louis and Jeff Harris of Columbia.
Throughout this session, Donnelly and Harris each had different tactics, with Donnelly
putting her duties of being a representative before campaigning and Harris barely
seeing the House floor at all (except for a few key press opportunities).

All state representatives are also up for re-election, and with Democrats tending
to be the favorite, the majority party of the House is expected to change. With only half
of the state senators up for re-election, the majority will most likely remain Republican.

AUTHOR: Ashton Cope

Despite the decision made by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2006 (Weinschenk v. Missouri) that requiring a citizen to show a valid, government-issued photo ID to vote is unconstitutional, the Missouri legislature is again considering reinstating the requirement.  The House of Representatives passed the measure to the Senate last week. (HJR48 HERE)

In 2006, the General Assembly passed a bill that would require Missourians to show a valid, government-issued photo ID in order to vote.  The measure was largely Republican with strong Democratic dissenters, including Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.

According to Republicans, this measure was necessary to prevent voter fraud in the state of Missouri.  Although they were never able to prove there was voter fraud in Missouri that would be addressed by this piece of legislation, they insisted this was necessary to protect the fundamental right to vote and to keep “illegals” from voting.

According to Democrats, Photo ID was a violation of constitutional rights and instituted a form of poll tax.  Many older, underprivileged, and disabled Missourians do not have a photo ID and do not have the means to get one.  The Democrats stated there was once a time when birth certificates were not issued, and a birth certificate is required in order to get a photo ID.  Since there is a fee to get a birth certificate, it was decided that this would be a form of poll tax.  Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was able to produce a list of approximately 240,000 Missourians who would be disenfranchised by this requirement.

Before Photo ID could go into affect, the Missouri Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Weinschenk v. Missouri.  So, why did Representative Stanley Cox (R-118) reintroduce Photo ID into the General Assembly?

Indiana recently had a case go before the Supreme Court of the United States (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board) regarding Photo ID, and it was decided that states could require voters to show a form of picture identification.  Already, though, there have been 13 cases of voters in Indiana being turned away for not having the proper identification – one student and twelve nuns.

The main argument being used by the republicans is, as illustrated in a debate by Representative Bryan Pratt (R-55), you have to show a photo id to rent videos, pick your niece up from school, and pay for lunch with a credit card – why shouldn’t you do so with something as sacred as voting?  Democrats are countering that renting videos and using a credit card aren’t rights expressly granted by the constitution, unlike voting.

The Senate Elections committee heard the resolution Monday and it will hit the Senate floor before the end of session on Friday.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

The term “Melting Pot” has been used to describe the United States throughout its history. We are an immigrant nation and our differences have defined us as a country. Immigration has become an important issue today as thousands of aliens illegally cross our borders each year. What rights do these individuals have despite their lack of citizenship?

According to Missouri legislation, they don’t have many rights. Bill SB858 states that, in order to comply with federal regulations regarding immigration, the Highway patrol is to educate and train their members to enforce Federal Immigration Laws. If attempts to verify the legal status of those in custody are not found to be conclusive, the Department of Homeland Security will take over and verification will be made within 48 hours. In addition, those who are jailed may not be set out on bail if there is reason to believe that the person is an illegal immigrant.

Also, SB858 affirms that it is against the law to harbor or transport anyone who has come into the U.S in violation of the law. This goes not only to individuals, but to municipalities as well. If a city adopts a policy of sanctuary for these illegal immigrants, they will not receive grants presented by the state.
This act reiterates Federal Law in that no illegal alien will be eligible for state or local benefits and one must provide evidence that they are here legally. Many illegal immigrants may have hoped for a short time that they would at least be given the benefit of driving; however, Missouri legislation bursts that bubble. The Department of Revenue will not issue any drivers licenses to any illegal immigrant nor will they accept licenses issued to illegal aliens from other states. So that’s why bike and shoe sells have gone up so much.

Cheap labor is ideal within the business world as it cuts production costs thereby raising the amount of profit they can make. It’s all about the dollar signs, baby. However, illegal aliens, we’re afraid, are off the market as the bill SB858 clearly states that employers are barred from employing illegal aliens. If they violate this law, they are subject to suspension of any permit they may have and any contract with the state will be annulled. In addition, public universities are banned from enrolling any students that are here illegally. But, wait, we do have excellent foreign exchange programs if you’re interested.

The bottom line is this: If we let one thing slip, we’ll see the domino effect. But it won’t be as cool.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Children are our most precious gifts on this Earth. They make us laugh, cry, angry, and just plain speechless at times. Yet, above all else, children fill us with love and devotion. This devotion to our children creates a need to make sure that they receive good quality care and a safe, clean environment.

The State of Missouri has developed a Quality Rating System for early childhood and before-and-after school programs licensed by the Department of Health and Senior Services which is to be developed by September 1, 2008. This quality rating system, under bill SB726, will be based off of similar pilots designed by the University of Missouri Center for Family Policy. Parents will have the ability to evaluate child care programs and easy access to the ratings of the quality evaluation system as they will be provided on the internet to the public.

The bill offers more than just the ability to rate the quality of childcare facilities. A tiered system of reimbursement for child care facilities will be developed by the Coordinating Board of Early Childhood. Subsequently, the proposed reimbursement plan will be submitted to the General Assembly and will take affect only after it has been authorized. Furthermore, bill SB726 implements the Quality Rating System Improvement Grant Fund. The funding encompasses all gifts, donations, moneys appropriated by the General Assembly, etc. The Improvement Grant Fund will provide this money to any certified provider seeking quality enhancement.

The act also states that the Children’s Division within the Department of Social Services will modify the income eligibility criteria for receiving financial assistance. This allows families that have earnings that are below 160% of the poverty level to obtain subsidy benefits. These benefits are to be distributed based on a sliding scale fee for children. However, the fee may be waived for children with special needs. A waiting list may be established if there is not enough money to distribute as well as a set of rules explaining the prioritizing of families who receive the funds. In addition, the bill shall create the Child Care and Development Fund, which consist of money received by the Federal Child Care and the Development Block Program.

It should be noted that certain neighborhood youth development programs will be exempt from the child care licensing requirements as long as the programs follow the provisions of the bill. These provisions within the bill allows for quality child care through improvements in facilities as well as the necessary funding. Every child deserves the finest quality that can be provided.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

It seems like every time I turn around the two words “credit report” jump out at me. I go to buy a car and the salesman must run a credit report. I go to buy a house and they ask for my credit. Even at home a commercial for FreeCreditReport.com is telling me to check out my credit report on their website. Hey, it’s free, right? The availability of your credit report to numerous hands may make your stomach churn. But wait, there is a solution.

According to the bill SB712, a “security freeze” may be placed on a consumer’s credit report if the consumer so wishes to choose. This security freeze prevents any credit reporting agency from reporting someone’s credit to a third party without the person’s explicit consent. The freeze must be in place within five days and the customer is to be notified within ten days of the restriction. In order to lift the freeze, a credit agency must receive instructions from the consumer. The first security request is, of course, free; however, a consumer will be subjected to a fee of $10 for every freeze thereafter.

A security freeze does not mean that a credit reporting agency does not ever give out a customer’s credit report. There are many circumstances in which a credit agency may give out a report. For instance, a credit report may be made if the State of Missouri requests it in an investigation of fraud. A credit report may also be made for certain insurance purposes, pursuant of a court order, and for a variety of other reasons. This bill also mandates that a credit reporting agency must provide summary rights to anyone who believes that they have been a victim of identity theft. If the agency violates the act, they are subjected to any actual damages that a consumer may experience, the court cost, as well as other reasonable assistance that the court may deem necessary.

The bill SB712 may also limit the type of information required to submit in receiving any rebates on purchases. Nevertheless, a business may ask for additional information if they believe that a rebate claim is fraudulent. The consumer at the time of the claim will be provided a mail-in-rebate form and they will be given 30 days to submit the form. After receiving the mail-in-rebate, a business shall send payment to the consumer within 30 days.

Amid the crowd of businesses and sales representatives thirsting for your credit, it’s nice to know that not everyone can see it. A credit report is like the report card you got in grade school: not everyone needs to know how well you’ve done (or even how well you haven’t).

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

As gas prices hit an all time high at $3.50 per gallon in Mid-Missouri, Missourians are grappling with the very same issue afflicting the rest of the nation: The Energy Brawl. People are consuming more energy than ever while suppliers scramble to meet demand. How is Missouri tackling current energy issues? Perhaps we should take a look at SB1181, which is a combination of the previous bills SCS/SBs 1100, 1262, and 1263.

The bill proposes that any new construction or renovation design documents of particular state buildings must include energy savings projections. These energy savings should be in compliance with the modification of the minimum energy efficiency standards that will be adopted or at least as severe as those of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). These standards and procedures are to take affect by July 1, 2009. These modifications will be only the first step. By July of 2016, state government must use renewable sources for at least 10% of electricity and hopefully by July of 2026, the state government will be using renewable sources for at least 20% of electricity.

The bill SB1181 also provides incentives for consumers to become energy savvy by incorporating the “Show Me Green Sales Tax Holiday”. Starting in 2009, the sales of all Energy Star certified appliances will be exempt from state sales tax from April 19th through April 25th. While this may not sound like much of an enticement, your children may be pushing you to become more economical as well. Due to another provision in the act, Missouri High Schools will be required to educate students in certain environmental-related topics. With this in mind, representatives ranging from the Economic Department to Elementary and Secondary Education must convene to secure grants that would fund: green jobs, production of renewable fuels, increasing green research and development, and so forth.

Do you remember the commercials of recycle and reuse from the 90s which had the catchy tune of “recycle, reuse, reduce”? At the time, recycle and reuse was all about paper and glass among other items. The bill offers advancement into e-cycling, the recycling of electronics. According to this bill, the Department of Natural resources is to educate consumers on recycling computers and televisions by providing a website. This website will provide information on how to recycle these electronics, such as locations for collection opportunities. No more piling up the Dells and Sony’s into the local landfill, where our decedents would have been able to pluck out vintage parts for their vintage computers a hundred years from now.

Missouri may be slow rolling hills and Mizzou Tiger addiction with a dab of KC barbeque sauce, but we are still in the ring when it comes to energy concerns.