CRAP STINKS AND FLIES ARE A PROBLEM

Posted 3/11/10

It has been said that “a lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit.” It has also been said that “pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.” Premium Standard Farms should have paid attention to both of those little pearls of wisdom. Had it done so, it might have avoided the $11 million dollar jury verdict handed down last week by a Jackson County, Missouri, jury.

Premium Standard has lost two lawsuits brought against it by the same plaintiffs. Its pursuit of fat profits has led to it being slaughtered twice in court. The lawsuits have both alleged that Premium Standard's hog production facilities, this is not your grandpa's family farm, create such a stench and breed so many flies that they are a nuisance. The plaintiffs--neighboring farmers-- testified that the odors are so bad and the flies so thick that they oftentimes cannot not go outside.

The odors and the flies are unique to this type of corporate hog production. The hog crap, urine and afterbirth all wind up in cesspits. The cesspits create the odors and become a breeding ground for flies. One expert in the recent lawsuit testified that there was a six inch mat of flies and maggots covering one cesspit. He went on to testify that he had never seen anything “as extreme as these cesspits.”

Premium Standard has had this problem for years. In fact in the late 1990's, after being sued by the State of Missouri, the company entered into an agreement with then-Attorney General Jay Nixon to address the issue. In the years since reaching this “lean compromise,” Premium Standard Farms has threatened to quit doing business in Missouri and repeatedly requested deadline extensions while doing little to address the problems.

Based on comments released in a prepared statement following the jury verdict, Premium Standard has learned nothing from the verdict. First, Premium Standard argued that the case was too complicated for the jury, stating: “The court gave the jury the impossible task of sorting through claims by 15 individuals from seven different families in different locations with each claim raising a set of distinctive issues.”

The fact that pig crap stinks and flies are a problem is not a complicated issue. Whether Premium Standard Farms should be held liable for the stench and the flies is the type of question juries address every day. You can bet your bottom dollar that had Premium Standard Farms won the case, it would have been praising the legal system.

Second, Premium Standard resorted to bullying by stating: “In light of this decision and in view of the continuing hostile environment toward live hog production, we have serious concerns whether we will ever make any future investments in the state of Missouri.”

The statement sounds like the whining of a petulant third grader that did not get his way and grandly announces that he is taking all of his toys and going home. Rather than address the issue and work toward a viable solution, with this statement Premium Standard Farms seeks to demonize the plaintiffs that brought the suit by scaring the crap, pardon the pun, out of its employees, most of which happen to live in the same rural community with the plaintiffs.

Individuals and corporations must all strive to be good citizens and live up to certain community standards. Being the largest employer in a rural community does not give Premium Standard the right to bully the people that live there. Such behavior would not be tolerated if one individual attempted to take such action, and cannot be tolerated by a company just because it has deep pockets. Premium Standard Farms should do the right thing and literally clean up its act.

(Reach Russ by emailing russp842@yahoo.com)

'GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST' LEGISLATION AT ITS WORST

Posted 3/5/10

Where does government intrusion into our private lives end? Based on the paternalistic, smoking ban legislation proposed by certain members of the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives, it knows no bounds. In the minds of the Republican and Democrat legislators supporting a statewide smoking ban, individual liberty must take a back seat to the vaguely outlined concept of “public health.”

This is ‘government knows best’ legislation at its worst. The legislation will ban smoking in public places, with the exception of smoke shops, private residences and twenty percent of hotel rooms in the state. To even give consideration to the proposal of a statewide smoking ban, we must accept as true the premise that smoking is a risk to the “public health” that can only be addressed by the proposed ban.

The premise is false. Smoking is not a healthy habit. In fact, many find it to be a filthy, dirty, even repugnant habit. Smoking does lead to second hand smoke. Studies have shown that second hand smoke is unhealthy. However, smoking is not illegal. Individuals are free to choose to smoke. Those who come into contact with second hand smoke, except for children living in the homes of smokers which the legislation does not address, voluntarily choose to have that contact. Contact with second hand smoke can easily be avoided by refusing to patronize establishments that allow smoking.

The free market will always find demand and cater to it. If there are large numbers of people that desire a smoke free bar, restaurant or other environment, such establishments will open to serve that demand. The patrons will avoid second hand smoke, the establishments will profit and the public health will no longer be at risk; all thanks to the invisible hand for the free market.

Likewise, non-smoking employees of establishments that allow smoking have made a voluntary, rational, economic choice to be in the presence of second hand smoke. Workers make such choices all of the time. Many jobs contain a fair amount of risk to the individual. Yet, because of the increased pay associated with the job, or for other reasons know only to the worker, they accept the employment and the risk that accompanies it.

If the smoking ban passes, where will the line be drawn, as it relates to legislation allegedly designed to benefit the “public health”? Will the clothes you wear, the food you eat and the home you live in become fair game? Arguments can certainly be made that the public health might be better served if fast food was prohibited, or at the very least highly regulated. The pollution and human rights violations that are part and parcel of your favorite jeans or silk blouse certainly does some harm to the public health. The house you live in, with its large carbon footprint and inefficient use of resources, certainly poses a danger to the public health.

Whether or not you are a smoker, I encourage you to contact your legislator and express your displeasure at this attempt at governmental overreaching. With cigar in hand, I will certainly do the same while celebrating what remains of our liberty.

(Smoke with Russ via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

CONCERN REMAINS ALONG RECOVERY ROAD

Posted 2/26/10

EDITOR'S NOTE: This week, Missouri State Auditor Susan Montee is substituting for normal columnist Russ Purvis. Montee penned the following piece:

It has been a year since Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). When you consider the economic upheaval we have been through, skepticism from concerned Americans is well placed. Like many others, I too am somewhat of a skeptic.

With regard to federal stimulus funds, I still have many of the same concerns I had from the onset of ARRA's passage to ensure these appropriations provide real value. Initially, state agencies received mixed signals and limited assistance from the federal government when it came to methods to accurately track and report expenditures. We have seen agency and recovery heads look confused and uninformed while testifying before Congress with reactions and answers that at times were unsettling. Meanwhile, the United States Senate has still not passed critical transparency support measures that could provide more assistance to states as well as greater protections for accountability of ARRA funding.

Uncertainty is more than just a condition of the times in which we live; it has become a state of mind for which greater accountability must be prescribed. I have shared these very real concerns with colleagues throughout the country, both Democrats and Republicans, while federal and state governments have set upon a fire brigade approach to fixing our nation's troubled economy.

I have engaged the Missouri State Auditor's Office to update daily all ARRA funds that travel in out of the state treasury, in addition to the continuous work we already do in auditing the expenditure of all federal funding throughout Missouri. Additionally, we volunteered to take part in a recovery pilot program for early reporting of problems with programs set to receive ARRA funds. As part of this effort, we evaluated weatherization and unemployment assistance programs to determine whether the state had internal controls in place to provide assurance that ARRA dollars are properly spent.

Our office identified potential problems in the program administered by Missouri's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which oversees the weatherizing of homes. As a grantor agency, DNR is responsible for monitoring the activities of contractors throughout the state who are to be given about $128 million in ARRA funds to help make homes more energy efficient and livable, especially during the winter. In the past, this program operated on just a fraction of that amount of funding with a budget of about six million dollars.

I have informed federal officials that weaknesses in Missouri's weatherization program exist. With authorized ARRA funding at more than twenty times previous levels and new expenditure control measures only now being tested, there is cause for alarm, especially since a prior audit of the program in 2007 showed similar monitoring deficiencies and lack of controls.

Our role is to point out vulnerabilities that do or may exist so that government can work to correct them. We all want economic recovery; however, lack of proper controls creates an environment that is ripe for waste and possibly even fraud.

I am committed to the approach of auditing where we tell it like it is. If Missouri is any indicator, the road to recovery needs a lot more lighting for the sake of accountability and a lot less reckless traffic in order to establish genuine confidence.

(The Landmark thanks State Auditor Susan Montee for pinch hitting for Russ Purvis this week.)

VOTE AGAINST EVERY INCUMBENT AT FEDERAL LEVEL

Posted 2/18/10

The filing deadline for declaring candidacy for office has not closed but campaigning is already in full swing. Candidates for every office from dog catcher to the U.S. Senate are running hither and yon, trying to convince us that they can save the country from going to hell in a hand basket.

In this day and age, campaigns involve much more than the candidates. Every political act from now until November will be designed by the respective political parties to increase the number of elected Democrats or Republicans; thereby increasing the power of whichever party winds up in the majority.

Politicians have totally lost interest in the fact that they are supposed to be representing us. Elections have become all about the accumulation of power - politics for politics sake. The people are viewed only as a toll booth on the election highway, to be paid outright with pork, or hoodwinked with the promise of future goodies.

Nothing illustrates the sad state of the election process better than the United States Senate's so-called “jobs bill.” To be clear, to call the legislation a “jobs bill” is a joke. The politicians still think that you can put lipstick on a pig, call it a prom queen, and the public will put a crown on it and call it a day.

Several weeks ago, finally sensing the public's growing anger over high unemployment, the Senate trotted out the idea of a bi-partisan jobs creation bill. The result was a little porker of a bill with an $85 billion dollar price tag. Loaded up with bacon, the original bill provided very little in direct job creation and a whole lot of special interest benefits.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, smelling a political opportunity, reduced the size of the bill from an $85 billion dollar porker to $15 billion dollar piglet. Before you congratulate Harry on this showing of fiscal restraint, consider the fact that his motivation was purely political. By reducing the size of the bill, he is attempting to put Republicans in a box. If Republicans refuse to support the bill, Democrats will be able to argue that Republican ties to special interests won out over jobs. If Republicans support the bill, Democrats will be able to argue that they were able to deliver a bill in spite of the attempts of big spending Republicans to load it up with pork.
Reid's actions have only increased partisan rancor. The Republicans cannot trust that alleged attempts by the Democrats at bi-partisanship are anything more than a ruse. Reid does not care. All that matters to him is the spin. For this very reason, the Republican leadership should refuse to meet with President Obama regarding health care. Reid did not spring his trap on his own. You can be sure Obama was in on it and is going to try to do something similar.

It has all become so much political theater. Unfortunately, it is a play with a trifecta of directors (Obama, Reid and Pelosi) suffering from severe narcissism, a sophomoric script, bad acting and a terrible musical score. The American people must bring the curtain down on this debacle. The only way to close this show is to vote against every incumbent at the federal level. Wouldn't that bring change you can believe in?

(Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

TIME TO REPEAL THE 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' POLICY

Posted 2/12/10

It is time to repeal the “Don't Ask Don't Tell” policy that has governed the United States military's treatment of gays in the military since 1993. It is a stupid policy born of fear, prejudice and Bill Clinton's penchant for mistaking accommodation for leadership.

Currently, the military is not allowed to ask recruits about sexual activity or orientation. Homosexual members of the military must remain in the closet or face discharge from the service. Only a few out of touch politicians, such as John McCain and Missouri's own Ike Skelton, and some homophobic members of the public, truly believe such a policy is necessary.

Politicians as diverse as former Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, considered the father of the modern day conservative movement, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, agree that there should be no ban or restriction on openly gay people serving in the military. Last July, Reid publicly supported a proposed 18 month moratorium on enforcing the prohibition against openly gay individuals. Reid said that in his opinion, “We shouldn't turn down anybody that's willing to fight for our country, certainly based on sexual orientation.” After President Obama pledged to end the “Don't Ask Don't Tell” policy in his State of the Union speech, Reid once again indicated his willingness to support a repeal of the law.

Senator Goldwater spoke out on this issue 17 years ago when former President Clinton indicated that he desired to allow openly gay individuals to serve. In a commentary published in the Washington Post, Goldwater stated that “[a]fter more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close. Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.”

Goldwater went on to opine: “It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn't true. Then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so--in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it 'a bit of an old chestnut.’”

Top military officials including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agree that the policy has to be changed. Democrats must push for the change now. There has been discussion of waiting for a Pentagon study on implementation of any changes. The Pentagon has indicated that the study may take a year to complete. It should not take a year to reach the conclusion to simply stop enforcing a bad policy. Delay for another year is not necessary and could result in a missed opportunity. If nothing is done until 2010, there is no guarantee that enough Democrats will survive to the 2010 election cycle to pass the necessary changes.

To all of the so-called conservatives that think I am wrong, I once again quote the late Senator Goldwater: “Some in Congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other. Well, that's just stupid. When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.”

(Reach Russ Purvis, independent, via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

DEMOCRATS NEED TO REMOVE PELOSI AS HOUSE SPEAKER

Posted 2/5/10

\Nancy Pelosi recently said that “the American people do not care about process.” The self-important, self-interested, Marxist nut's statement is close to correct. Historically, the American people have cared little about process and more about results in every area of life, including politics.

Consider the food we eat. Most of the ingredients listed on packaging involve ten syllable words describing chemicals that do not exist in nature. Margarine for example is one chemical reaction away from becoming the plastic tub in which it is contained. And, I would venture to guess, better than 90% of the meat eating population would be vegetarian if they were required to kill, gut, clean and butcher the animals they eat.

The political process itself has been compared to food. It was Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the German Empire, that said: “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” As long as the political sausage has tasted good, the American people have, for the most part, been content to leave well enough alone. That attitude has changed, at least temporarily, due to the combination of the health care debacle and the 24 hour news cycle.

The prospect of health care reform interested the American public enough that, unlike most legislative proposals, the general public was aware that something was going on. The 24 hour news cycle, needing something to report on that might hold the public's interest, started poking around. As news outlets began to strip away the sausage casing, the American public became more and more disgusted with the ingredients making up the legislation.

True to form, the politicians remained out of touch. Even Obama, who ran much of his political campaign on the issue of transparency in government, misread the public. The House bill, like Pelosi's face, is frozen in time, resembling the hippy dippy, big government knows best, legislation of the past. The Senate bill is not much better and was passed only after the addition of one special flavor Senator Ben Nelson bribery sauce.

If not for the Republican victory over the Democrats in the U.S. Senate race for the seat once held by Ted Kennedy, did the ability to pass of the legislation truly become an issue. Without 60 votes in the Senate, the process has changed. However, the American public is still interested and that is why Pelosi's statement is not completely correct.

As long as she believes that the American public does not care about the process of crafting and passing health care reform, she will attempt to ram home some form of the current legislation. The result will be utter chaos for Democrats running for office in 2010. Several months ago I predicted that Sam Graves will hold his seat in the 6th District for as long as Pelosi remains Speaker of the House. I am now willing to predict that any Republican incumbent in the House, barring the discovery of some crime during the campaign, will hold his or her seat for as long as Pelosi is the Speaker. The Democrats need to remove her as Speaker and find a moderate as her replacement.

The American people need to remain engaged in the political process. Health care is just one of the many issues that require attention. If the public just keeps on swallowing the political sausage the politicians feed us, the United States will face an early demise. But like type 2 diabetes, the symptoms can be reversed; Americans just have to be much more careful about the laws they are willing to swallow.

(Send email to Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

RULING IS A WIN FOR CONSTITUTION AND FREE SPEECH

Posted 1/30/10

As of late, the shadow of death appears to be hovering over all things political. Health care reform died with the Democrat's loss of the senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy. The dreams that the far left held for Obama have died or lay dying, as he begins to steer a course more toward the middle. Cap and trade is on life support and is not expected to survive. But perhaps one of the more interesting deaths to have occurred is the death of the long held conservative position on “judicial activism.”

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court kicked aside years of judicial precedent, including a decision reached by the Court less than ten years ago, and ruled that unions and corporations may not be barred from contributing unlimited funds to political campaigns. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, it is clear that the United States Supreme Court jumped from the high dive directly into the deep end of the judicial activism pool. Conservatives have ignored this obvious fact. Of course that may be because, to many conservatives, court decisions only rise to the level of judicial activism if the decision reached is one that does not conform to a rigid conservative ideology.

Did the Court reach the right decision? If you accept the premise that a corporation or a union is nothing more than an association of people, and that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals and groups of individuals to engage in political speech, then the Supreme Court ruled correctly. If, however, you believe that unions and corporations are simply legal fictions, susceptible to the vagaries of the statutory process and, therefore, subject to rigid regulation within a statutory scheme, the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly.

When dealing with free speech, I believe the Supreme Court is required to take a very broad view. The decision, although it does fly in the face of prior precedent, was correct. That does not mean that the Supreme Court did not act in an activist manner. As it relates to free speech, the next question is whether the Supreme Court will revisit other groups such as students and government employees, where it has previously allowed free speech limitations.

Contrary to what many pundits are saying, the ruling does not foreshadow the death of politics as we know it. Politics “as we know it” changes all of the time. Most recently the use of the internet changed the way politics had been practiced for years. Likewise, more money from corporations and unions may change the dynamic but it will not kill the process.

In fact, corporate and union money will be a very sharp, double edged sword. Too much money directed toward any one ballot measure or candidate will become a campaign issue. Politicians do not want to be made to appear to be the wholly owned property of a particular union or corporation. The public will simply not accept such candidates.

Congress can and should impose strict disclosure requirements to guarantee that the general public will be able see how much money is being donated by all contributors and where that money is going. Free speech will be protected while allowing all of us to know what is going on behind the curtain.

No one should view the recent ruling as a political defeat. Everyone should view the ruling as a victory for the United States Constitution in general and freedom of speech in particular - given to each of us by the use of judicial activism.

(The Convenient Truth is a victory for readers. Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

MILITANT MIDDLE IS NOW THE TRUE MAJORITY PARTY

Posted 1/22/10

With the holidays, seriously wicked winter weather and the overall state of the world, many of you may not have been following the political contest taking place in Massachusetts. Trust me when I tell you, big things have been going on. With the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, a special election had to be scheduled to pick his successor. As I write this column the race is too close to call.

Initially, Democrats believed that they would win the election by a large margin, if not a landslide. Democrats mistakenly thought that the liberal ideals championed by Edward Kennedy and supported, allegedly, by the electorate, would surely carry the day. The Democrats failed to appreciate the fact that Kennedy continually won reelection simply because he was Kennedy: the political equivalent of a drunk uncle that you like too much to send home. Democrats blindly overlooked the fact that Massachusetts elected Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, from 1990 to 2006.

The Republicans initially viewed the race as a referendum on Obama: feeling that victory would demonstrate not only a public rejection of the Obama agenda, but also a renewed return to conservative “principles.” The Republicans also view the race as a preview of the fall election cycle. A win in Massachusetts could possibly be the first step in taking back the House and the Senate in the fall.

As of the deadline for this column, the result of the election is still unknown; however, the fact that both political parties have misjudged the meaning of the election is crystal clear. The closeness of the Massachusetts election really represents the rise of the Militant Middle. It also clearly shows that the nuts are in charge of the asylum in both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

The Democrats took power in 2009 and quickly left planet earth. The far left took control of party policy and the majority of the American public that identified itself with the Democratic Party was left behind. The current incarnation of the Democratic Party is following a socialist agenda that only the very lunatic fringe can abide by. Holding the Massachusetts seat occupied by Edward Kennedy will show nothing more than the fact that the Militant Middle found the Democratic candidate a little less distasteful than the Republican.

The Republicans have become a house divided. The right wing, Tea Party fringe, a group that believes Glenn Beck possesses a profound intellect, are making every effort to push everyone that does not pass its litmus test out of the Republican Party. The problem is that the Tea Partiers are all hat and no cattle when it comes to addressing the issues that face our country. It is not enough to scream and yell, real solutions must be offered. If the Tea Partiers are successful, the Republican Party will be devoid of a brain.

If the Republicans win the Massachusetts seat, it will only show that independents believe that a Democrat has held the seat too long.

Disaffected Democrats and Republicans, along with Libertarians and other independent minded voters now make up the Militant Middle. Every election in 2010 will require Democrats and Republicans to figure out how to get this group to vote for their candidate. Unfortunately, the two parties have become so polarized and possess such rigid ideologies that reaching out to the middle may not be possible if each wishes to protect the wacko fringe elements that are now considered the “base” of each. In 2010 the Militant Middle may simply choose to stay home.

The Militant Middle is truly the new majority party. Fiscally conservative and socially neutral to progressive (just leave us alone); all the Militant Middle is lacking is leadership and organization. I am willing to do my part. Let me know if you are with me.

(Russ Purvis is chair of The Landmark’s Militant Middle. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

IT'S TIME TO ABOLISH THE STATE INCOME TAX

Posted 1/18/10

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “If we would guide by the light of reason we must let our minds be bold.” If any bold minds exist in the Missouri Legislature, during the 2010 legislative session, such minds must convince the dimmer among them of the reasonableness of abolishing the state income tax.

Abolishing state income tax is not a new or even a novel idea. Seven states have no state income tax: Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Tennessee and New Hampshire tax only interest and dividend payments. Last year, the Missouri House approved a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the state income tax in Missouri.

In the current economic environment abolishing the state income tax and replacing it with a sales tax is both bold and reasonable. It is bold because it addresses head on an issue that has been festering for years: The viability of sustained economic growth when government taxes the fruits of an individual or corporation's labor. It is reasonable because it answers the former question by recognizing that economic growth is not sustainable in such a scenario, and provides a direct solution: abolish the tax.

It cannot be argued that income taxes do anything but place a drag on the economy at a macro and at a micro level. It is agreed by politicians of every stripe that the number one issue facing the United States, and the State of Missouri, is job creation. Missouri will be much more competitive in this area when it eliminates the state income tax at the individual and corporate level.

Abolishing the state income tax will place the State of Missouri at a competitive advantage when recruiting new businesses- a necessity if the true job creation is to occur. Businesses large and small give serious consideration to tax issues when deciding where to locate. The lower the tax rate, the more attractive the location becomes.
Abolishing the state income tax will also lead to growth in personal income and personal freedom. Individuals will be free to spend the money that would otherwise be paid as a tax. Some may choose to invest in business opportunities while others may simply buy consumer goods. Either way, the economy is strengthened.

Many of those that favor abolishing the state income tax favor replacing it with the FairTax. The FairTax increases the sales tax rate in Missouri but provides a monthly rebate check to cover the costs of taxes incurred up to the federal poverty level. The FairTax proposes rebates to address the argument that a sales tax is regressive and unfairly impacts the poor. I do not accept the premise that the sales tax is regressive and, therefore, propose a simple increase in the state sales tax with no rebates.

Abolishing the state income tax will also be one large step toward taking politics out of the issue of taxation. Politicians will no longer be able to use abatements or exemptions from the state income tax as a political too or weapon. If legislators are truly bold, the Missouri Constitution should also be amended to require that any exemption or abatement from any tax imposed by the State of Missouri must be subject to a vote of the people.

Abolishing the state income tax is a bold and reasonable solution to Missouri's economic woes. It remains to be seen if the individuals that make up our legislature are up to the challenge or are simply timid and reactionary.

(We won’t abolish the Convenient Truth. Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

STILL NO CLOSER TO KEEPING TERRORISTS OUT OF THE SKY

Posted 1/8/10

Platte County has been plagued by record setting snow and arctic temperatures since Christmas Eve. So much for global warming! But even the recent cold weather is no match for the bone chilling reality delivered Christmas Day by Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab: Terrorism is still a threat to air travel and, even with all of the civil rights violations that have been imposed, our government is no closer to preventing it than it was in 2001.

Initially, the administration bungled its response to the attempted bombing. Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano actually stated that “the system worked.” If the fact that the terrorist was stopped due to a faulty weapon and the actions of fellow passengers then, yes, the system worked. Obviously, Napolitano made a stupid statement. President Obama corrected her a few days later when he said "When our government has information on a known extremist and that information is not shared and acted on as it should have been, so that this extremist boards a plane with dangerous explosives that could cost nearly 300 lives, a systematic failure has occurred.”

Unfortunately for Obama, the old Harry Truman saying, “The buck stops here,” applies to this situation. Obama now finds himself in the same position as George W. Bush following 911: The leader of an administration let down by the fact that its security agencies are at best inept and at worst incompetent.

A former chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, recently identified three critical errors by the administration: First “[w]e had an administration which was not focused, as it should be, on terrorism. They were focused on health care and global warming and the economy. That's very understandable. Secondly, we weren't really focused on Yemen and the terrible things that are happening there. Now we are and that's a good thing. And, thirdly, there were holes obviously and the system wasn't working well. We found out it wasn't working well and the president understands it's not working well and now we're focused on fixing it.”

In theory, the government will focus like a laser on fixing the problems. However, in reality, the creation of Homeland Security and a cabinet level secretary of that department, was supposed to fix that problem years ago. The different agencies continue to bicker, compete and basically act like twelve year old boys, all to the detriment of the American public. The politicians have behaved no better. Almost before the plane was on the ground, Republicans were pointing fingers at Obama and more than a few Democrats were attempting to connect the incident to the former Bush administration.

So far, the only solution that has been offered is to require all passengers on transatlantic flights to remain in their seats the hour before landing. This requirement might actually surpass taking your shoes off for airport security for complete uselessness and stupidity. Such complex issues simply do not lend themselves to such knee jerk reactions.

The real solution involves sharing of information between agencies: Something that was supposed to be happening but obviously is not. It is déjà vu all over again. 2010 feels a lot like 2001.

(Landmark readers can reach Independent columnist Russ Purvis via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

HEALTH CARE BILL MOVES US ONE STEP CLOSER TO A SOCIALIST STATE

Posted 12/31/09

As 1999 came to an end, we all held our breath and wondered what disaster Y2K was going bring to the world. It seems kind of quaint looking back on it. As 2009 comes to an end, we do not have to wonder about what disaster is going to strike. On Christmas Eve, the United States Senate delivered final verification of an ongoing disaster that must now be dealt with. The disaster is not the health care bill itself. While it is true that the bill is an abortion, it will probably not survive the house and senate reconciliation conference.

The true disaster lies in the fact that both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, in passing their respective versions of health care deform, have put on a very public demonstration of what we have suspected for years: They are charlatans, perhaps even criminals, with no concern for the United States Constitution, who will do anything for political gain. Statesmanship officially died in 2009, leaving our once great Republic one step closer to a socialist state. We may face no greater disaster in the United States in our lifetime.

The purchase of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's vote supporting the senate's health care deform bill is only one obvious example of the disaster. Nelson's actions should be considered illegal. Unfortunately, they are par for the course. Nelson spent weeks pontificating about how he could not support a bill that did not contain specific language regarding abortion funding. In the end, his Democratic colleagues found the thirty pieces of silver necessary to buy off this modern day Judas. In return for Nelson's vote, and a filibuster proof, sixty vote majority, Nebraska will be exempt from paying for any increases in Medicaid costs in perpetuity.

The cost of Nelson's “Cornhusker Compromise” is estimated to be at least $100 million dollars. Where will the money come from? Every last penny of the money necessary to buy Nelson's vote will come from the taxpayers of the other 49 states that make up the good old USA. Nelson's deal smells so bad that the attorney generals from Alabama, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, North Dakota, Washington and South Carolina are conducting a coordinated investigation into the constitutionality of the shakedown.

Nelson's actions are not an isolated incident involving one senator obviously worthy of removal from office. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu is another prime example of the rotten stew of excrement our federal government has become. To secure her vote, Landrieu forced her fellow Democrats to include $100 million in aid to Louisiana. Here again, the bribe will be funded with our tax dollars.

Each and every politician that says that health care deform will be not increase the deficit or that the bill is better than doing nothing is a charlatan. In this government's version of the Wizard of Oz, we are simply so many brainless scare crows and they are the Wizard. At least in the book, the Wizard operated from behind a curtain.

Our elected representatives have so little respect for our intellect and common sense that they simply use the curtain as a backdrop at the press conferences they continue to hold to tell us that everything is going well.

Unfortunately, we cannot pull a Dorothy and click our slippers and head back to Kansas, leaving this disaster behind. During the next 12 months we must work to pull our government back from abyss. We can only do so by casting a vote against every incumbent in the United States Congress. Democrat and Republican alike they must all go. Maybe by such drastic action, future representatives will remember that they work for us, not for their own self interest.

(Contact Russ Purvis, Independent columnist, at russp842@yahoo.com)

LOCAL DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR GIFTS FROM GOP

Posted 12/24/09

The Republican Party is doing all it can to wish Democrats in Platte County a very merry Christmas. The Republicans have even sent the Democrats gifts. The first gift arrived a few weeks ago when Platte County Presiding Commissioner Betty Knight decided not to seek another term. The second gift arrived last week with the announcement by State Rep. Jason Brown that he will be seeking the open presiding commissioner's seat, instead of a seat in the Missouri State Senate.

Critics and pundits, including yours truly, have argued for months that Knight must go. However, the Democrats have not demonstrated the ability to recruit a candidate capable of beating Knight in 2010. Had Knight stayed in the race without a Republican opponent in the primary, she would have probably won another term. Was Knight tossed to the curb by the Republicans in favor of Brown? We may never know the true answer to that question. However, I am willing to speculate that she was. Brown has been loyal to his party and represents its future. Knight represents the fuzzy, spendthrift present that the Republican Party is trying to forget.

At this point her reasons for leaving do not matter. It is always harder to beat an incumbent than to win an open seat. With Brown in the race instead of Knight, the Democratic candidate will not be facing an incumbent. However, the Democratic candidate is going to have to convince the public that he or she is more fiscally conservative and, if elected, will be a more responsible steward of the taxpayers' money than Brown. Given Brown's record as a state representative, this will be a difficult but not impossible task.

With Brown's decision not to seek the Missouri Senate seat, being vacated due to term limits by Senator Charlie Shields in 2010, the race to become the 34th District's next senator is truly up in the air. The senate seat was Brown's to win. Barring any major missteps he would have survived the Republican primary against State Representative Bob Schaaf of St. Joseph. He would then have beaten Democrat State Representative Martin Rucker in the general election.

Brown's decision not to run still makes political sense. If he becomes Platte County Presiding Commissioner he can build his political resume. He will be able to argue that he has experience as a soldier, state legislator and as the CEO of one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Missouri. All of that will come in handy when he runs for a seat in the U.S. Congress in a few years. It also makes sense from a practical standpoint. As the presiding commissioner, he can remain at home and make twice a much as he would have as a state senator.

The Republicans are betting that it is going to be their year and even a candidate as weak as Schaaf can win. The Republicans may be overplaying their hand. Rucker can beat Schaaf. Rucker represents the 29th District which is made up of parts of northern Platte County and southern Buchanan County. Schaaf does not represent any part of Platte County and is not well known here.

The challenge for the Democrats will be to keep the primary clean. At this point in time Rucker does not have a primary opponent. However, with Brown out of the picture, the race may be too tempting for some to pass up. If the Democrats wind up with a contested primary, Schaaf will win the general election.

For now Democrats should celebrate Christmas and be thankful for the Republican gifts. The real challenge will be to use those gifts well in 2010.

(Email Russ Purvis, Independent pundit, at russp842@yahoo.com)

GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PUT COAL IN YOUR STOCKING

Posted 12/18/09

Christmas is just around the corner and the government is hell bent on giving all of us a stocking full of coal in the form of health care deform, new EPA regulations and an omnibus spending bill loaded down with so much pork you can hear it oink from Alaska to Washington.

It is somewhat ironic that as we prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, Senator Joe Lieberman, a Jew, is attempting to keep one lump of coal out of our Christmas stockings. The man does not even celebrate Christmas but he sure seems to understand the spirit of giving associated with the holiday. Lieberman, like the little Dutch boy that stuck his finger in the dyke, is holding back the flood of health care deform that will drown us all if it the United States Senate passes its version of the legislation.

Lieberman has said no to the public option and no to the asinine idea of adding even more debt to the bankrupt system known as Medicare. The Medicare proposal would allow people to begin buying into the system at 55 or younger and is simply an attempt at a backdoor version of the public option.

As hard as Lieberman is working to keep one lump of coal out of our stockings, the Environmental Protection Agency is working twice as hard to deposit a lump or two. Earlier this month the EPA released a formal “determination” that alleged global warming pollution imperils human health and, therefore, can and will be regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act.

This decision by the EPA is nothing more than a power grab by pointy-headed bureaucrats. If Congress does not clip the EPA's wings legislatively, an administrative agency, not our elected representatives, will have the power to regulate literally every aspect of our lives in the name of the religion of global warming. The economy will be wrecked, Al Gore will be our Lord and Savior and we will all be living like third-world hunter gatherers, but without fire since it causes pollution.

If you already feel like a hunter gatherer because you are having trouble finding a holiday ham, simply turn to the east--and not to worship Mecca. Actually, if you were turning east to worship Mecca you would not be eating ham anyway, but I digress. Almost all of the pork in the United States this Christmas season has been used to prepare the omnibus spending bill feast.

Because Congress failed to do its job and pass necessary appropriation bills prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, it has forced to roll everything together into one omnibus bill. Being the Christmas season, everyone wanted to hang his or her own little porky ornament, over 5000, on the spending tree. Never mind the fact that the country is broke and the nation's debt ceiling has been reached.

One bright spot for Missouri is the fact that Senator Claire McCaskill voted against the spending bill. McCaskill was joined by Democratic Senators Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold in opposing this tribute to bacon. Senator Bayh is now calling on President Obama to veto the bill. A nice bit of theater on Bayh's part that is totally unhinged from reality. Obama is an elf attempting to fill out the Santa suit that is his presidency. There is no way he is going to deny the good little girls and boys in Congress their toys.

I guess coal in our stockings may be a good thing. After all, if the enviro nuts get their way, the only legal use for coal will be as a stocking stuffer.

(Reach the independent-minded Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com)

THIS WHOLE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IDEA IS OUT OF CONTROL

Posted 12/10/09

A portly little man and his very blonde wife, one in an ill fitting tux, the other in attire entirely inappropriate for the occasion, manage to crash a state dinner at the White House. Hilarity ensues.

The entire matter would merely be a blip on the radar screen of the reality television crowd, except for the fact that it did reveal a hole in White House security. Even that issue can and will be addressed and used to improve security going forward. The larger issue that has emerged is the Obama administration's casual use of Executive Privilege.

Executive Privilege is the alleged ability of the President to withhold information from the Congress. Past presidents, including Clinton and Bush, have argued that the right to do this is justified by the Constitution. The Obama administration invoked the alleged privilege last week, refusing to allow Obama's social secretary, Desiree Rogers, to appear before the House Homeland Security Committee, which is investigating the security breach. Executive Privilege, like the right to an abortion, is not a right expressly granted in the language of the Constitution. But assuming for a moment that it does exist, why on earth would it apply to a mere social secretary?

A social secretary is not a cabinet level position like the Secretary of State. As social secretary, Desiree Rogers is responsible for booking bands for Obama and yelling at staffers when they mistakenly put peanuts in the candy dishes. But in the upside down, image-over-substance world that we are living in, Desiree is a star. Even so, by refusing to allow her to testify, Obama is telling all of us and that his administration is a closed shop. Even the illusion of the transparency Obama and Pelosi spoke of is gone. Such is the stuff of kings and petty dictators.

Executive Privilege is nothing more than a political contrivance. A literal reading of the Constitution will find no reference to such a privilege. In United States v. Nixon, the Nixon tapes case, the Supreme Court addressed the concept of Executive Privilege and concluded that there is a “valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” The court then promptly ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes. The holding was very narrow. However, politicians, like rats, can squeeze through a keyhole, and Presidents have been attempting to broaden the concept of assistance with “manifold duties” ever since. Unfortunately, Congress has done little to challenge the power grab.

In his article, “The Myth of Executive Privilege,’ Professor Kevin R.C. Gutzman, sums up the arrogance associated with the concept of Executive Privilege: “When a president invokes Executive Privilege, he is saying that despite a congressional request for information, or even despite a congressional subpoena, he is not going to let Congress learn what it wants to know. He, in other words, knows better than Congress what matters Congress should investigate.”

The ever increasing use of Executive Privilege is no minor matter. For all of Obama's talk of the White House being the people's house; for all of Obama's talk of a transparent government; for all of Obama's talk of hope and change; his actions tell a different story. Each time a President Obama invokes Executive Privilege, we move one step away from a representative democracy and one step closer to the Imperial Presidency which George W. Bush began.

(Reach Russ by email at russp842@yahoo.com or catch him at The Landmark Christmas party on Friday)

CONGRESS MUST REFORM THE WAY IT SPENDS MONEY

Posted 12/4/09

A debt ceiling is generally considered to be the maximum amount of debt that an individual or entity can incur. Believe it or not, the United States does, by statute, have a debt ceiling. Unfortunately, it is subject to amendment by the drunken sailors we affectionately call our “representatives” in Congress.

The current debt ceiling is capped at $12.1 trillion. Obamanomics, combined with Bush's moronic bailout, has maxed out the country's credit card. So what is the Obama administration going to do? The answer does not involve addressing the underlying issue of fiscal responsibility. In fact the administration is pushing Congress to enact legislation that will increase the debt ceiling by another trillion dollars.

A trillion dollars does not go very far in Washington these days. According to the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, “We're seeing deficits projected for the next 10 years of over a trillion dollars a year. It's not sustainable. It's not fair, and it's not right.” Although recently it has received little in the way of scrutiny, the deficit is the most pressing issue that we are facing as a nation.

Agree or disagree in theory with health care reform, cap and trade, or any of a host of other programs being bandied about by either political party, not one of them can be supported over the long term on debt. To avoid a potential governmental shutdown, the debt ceiling issue must be dealt with this month. Congress appears to be afraid to tackle the issue head on.

There is a possibility that Congress will try to simply sneak an increase through while public is distracted by the fight over health care. If that happens, it will surely serve to prove my theory that we need new representation across the board. Hard choices have to be made. Obviously, a government shutdown must be avoided if at all possible. The economy is fragile and a shutdown will do nothing to improve it.

Now is not the time to increase the debt ceiling without attaching meaningful legislation relating to deficit spending. All work on health care should cease until this issue is addressed. To continue to debate healthcare right now is analogous to any one of us spending days deciding on which flat screen TV to buy while we have no money in the bank and our credit card is maxed out.

An updated version of the pay as you go (PAYGO) legislation that expired in 2002 should be attached to any increase in the debt ceiling. Any new version should outlaw or place strict caps on discretionary spending, advance appropriations and other tricks that Congress previously employed in an attempt to avoid PAYGO. Any new federal spending bill should be required to contain a provision identifying a specific funding source. Alleged savings from other federal programs should not be considered to be a revenue source until such savings are realized.

Congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to take on this challenge. Unless the masses apply pressure, the debt ceiling will be quietly increased without addressing the growing deficit spending. If Congress truly cares about the future health of the United States of America, it must reform the way it spends money. Failure to do so will undoubtedly lead to the death of our nation. Then all of the health care reform in the world will not be able to save us.

(Reach Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com or see him at The Landmark’s Dec. 11 Christmas party)

WE ARE IN A FIGHT TO PRESERVE OUR FREEDOM

Posted 11/27/09

It was Aristotle that said “the basis of a democratic state is liberty.” As you contemplate all that you have to be thankful for during this holiday season, consider giving thanks for the fact that this nation was founded on the concept of individual liberty. Then, without hesitation, drop to your knees and pray, to whatever god, devil, or garden gnome that you worship, for Americans to have the time and ability to protect that liberty in the face of the efforts of its government to steal this most precious of rights from you and every one of your fellow citizens.

It is an unfortunate fact that many people do not even truly understand the concept of liberty and, therefore, they are oblivious to the fact that is quickly disappearing. Over 150 years ago, the English political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, provided an explanation of individual liberty that every American must fight to protect and preserve. “The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” He went on to state that “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.”

In other words, most of the actions that our government has taken over the last decade, and for several decades before, in the name of the public good, or to protect the individual, have done little to serve the cause of liberty. For example, consider laws making many drugs illegal. I will agree that poking a needle full of heroin in one's arm is probably not the brightest thing to do. However, the act in and of itself causes no direct harm to any other person and criminalizing the act violates individual liberty. If the government wishes to penalize activity associated with acts that a person might do while under the influence of a drug, that adversely impacts others, it may, without stealing a little of all of our liberty. The example is extreme but it proves the point that liberty allows the individual a great deal of latitude.

Our government continually ignores this fact. Health care deform is a prime example. The government, with no concern for our liberty, is in the process of stealing our individual right to make decisions regarding medical care without interference from regulation. It is argued that society benefits. I submit that any benefit to society is outweighed by the loss of liberty. Yet, many among our number are ready to follow the government down this road. Benjamin Franklin said that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” You can bet if you allow the federal government such unlimited power over your life, you will have neither liberty or safety in very short order.

As a nation, we are truly at war with our own government to preserve our liberty. Give thanks there is still time to fight and, with every holiday card you write, spread the words first spoken by Malcolm X: “Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you are a man (or woman), you take it.”

(You’re always free to email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

CHINA HAS THE UNITED STATES IN A STRANGLEHOLD

Posted 11/19/09

President Obama is on his Asian tour. Unlike his tour of Europe during his campaign, he is not being met with roaring crowds. This time around, the audience resembles a Chinese version of the Stepford wives: groups of glassy eyed, unmoving Chinese - staring blankly at Obama. When he is not bowing to Japan's emperor, he is being lectured by the Chinese about the United States' debt load. The Germans let him use the Berlin Wall as a backdrop for a campaign speech. The Chinese will not even broadcast his “why can't we all get along” speeches on state run television.

Bowing to the emperor of Japan was simply shameful. One of the basic underpinnings of our nation is the fact that all people are created equal. Obama's bow before any nation's head of state is symbolic of the Obama administration's view of the United States. His bow suggests that he believes that the United States is not, perhaps, a cut above other nations, but that it is, in fact, a cut below.

In one of his underwhelming speeches to a hand-picked Chinese audience, President Obama said “We do not seek to contain China's rise. On the contrary, we welcome China as a strong and prosperous and successful member of the community of nations.” That statement demonstrates, in a nutshell, exactly what is wrong with Obama's foreign policy. We should not, in fact we must not, welcome any nation's rise if it comes at the expense of the United States. Our national interest must always be paramount. If that is not the case, why have we spent our nation's treasure and blood year after year, decade after decade, century after century for that reason?

President Obama has also told the Chinese that we are not “preordained” to be rivals. Obama is either naïve, does not know his history, or simply has no spine. He is not a dumb man, which rules out the first two possibilities. Obama is simply weak. Each and every citizen of the United States is preordained to be a rival of the Chinese. First of all, the Chinese are communists; which by itself qualifies China as a rival. China is also one of the biggest human rights violators on the planet. China consciously undervalues its currency in an effort to adversely impact our economy. China dumps steel on the world market at less than market value to adversely impact our economy. For all of those reasons, China has chosen to be a preordained rival.

Obama's problem when dealing with China is the fact that it does own so much of our debt. So long as we continue to go into debt and mortgage our future with things like socialized medicine, China will have an upper hand. Add to that equation, the idiotic legislation passed in the name of the religion that is global warming, and China has the United States in a stranglehold.

It makes no sense. We are fighting a “war on terror” in Afghanistan, a country that the terrorists we are after left long ago, to allegedly keep our nation safe; however, like a crack head, our government, addicted to debt, sells out our nation for another fix, and China is our pusher. It slowly buys our debt and watches us waste away. And like any pusher, it will kick us to the curb when we can no longer buy the drug it has to sell. Then we will be left to whore ourselves out to the rest of the world in a desperate effort to get another fix. By then all will be lost. Maybe it already is.

(Russ Purvis is a former Democrat, now Independent. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

PROTECT YOUR WAY OF LIFE: BECOME INVOLVED

Posted 11/13/09

A few months ago, I wrote a column praising the Blue Dog Democrats. The Blue Dogs were in a heated battle over health care reform with the Wicked Witch of the West, Nancy, I won't ride a broom, give me a private jet, Pelosi. I gave special mention to Representative Dennis Moore of Kansas. Unfortunately, I gave praise too soon to Mr. Moore. That dog went from blue to yellow quicker than crap through a goose.

This past Saturday, Moore, proving to be a spineless jelly fish when pressured by President Obama and the Witch, voted for the House version of socialized medicine. I predict today that his vote will cost him his seat in 2010. Here in the Sixth District, Representative Sam Graves voted against socialized medicine. I predict, as I have before, that he will hold the Sixth District seat as long as Pelosi remains the Speaker of the House.

The House has passed a bill that, if allowed to become the law of the land, will turn this nation into a socialist state. The only thing standing in the way of the literal destruction of our form of government is the United States Senate. The Senate has often been referred to as the “world's greatest deliberative body.” The health care reform debate will be a true test of the truth or absurdity of that assertion.

So far the Senate is off to a good start. Upon passage of the House version of socialized medicine, President Obama urged the Senate “to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people.” Never mind the fact almost every poll shows that the majority of American people do not want the reform that is being forced upon them. In response, Sen. Lindsey Graham stated that “the House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate." Senator Joe Lieberman, a fellow independent, has threatened to filibuster any Senate version of socialized medicine that includes the public option contained in the House bill. If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” Lieberman said.

Unfortunately, some senators are soft on the issue and are hiding behind the idea of a “trigger.” A trigger will allow a public option to become a part of the plan if premiums reach a certain level in a specified period of time, yet to be determined. A trigger is simply a back door way of adopting a public option. Senator McCaskill has indicated she might support this option. Senator Kit Bond has indicated that he will not.

Before anything can happen, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must find 60 votes to begin debate. It is unlikely that he will have trouble finding those votes. The real battle will begin when he goes looking to find the 60 votes necessary to stop or prevent a filibuster.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that the United States Senate will do the right thing and stop this health care debacle in its tracks. They are politicians, not statesmen. Like rats, they will act in their own self interest; however, they will put up a good fight if cornered. We must corner them and force them to fight against the destruction of our nation. It begins and ends with you. Start with a simple phone call expressing your outrage to both Bond and McCaskill by calling (202) 224-3121. The switchboard will connect you to either senator's office. Follow-up your call with a letter, or a dozen, mailed to United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510.

Be sure to reference the senator you wish to reach on the envelope. Your way of life depends on your becoming involved now, before it is too late.

(Reach Russ Purvis, Independent, at russp842@yahoo.com)

DON'T EAT THE SLOP THEY ARE TRYING TO FEED YOU

From the 11/5/09 issue

Until this year I have never really given much thought to the flu. I know that there have been several epidemics that have occurred during the past hundred years or so. I also know the flu kills several thousand people every year. But, until this year, I always lumped the flu together with the common cold. After all, most cold remedies do the same thing. But this year is different. This year the PIG flu is out there. If you believe the breathless reports on the news, it is waiting to get every last one of us.

To be sure the Pig flu, H1N1 to all of you animal rights lovers who are worried pigs will get a bad rap if the word pig is attached to the flu, has been overhyped by the media. However, the issue holds my interest for a very different reason. The government's vaccine response to the “crisis” is the real interesting issue. The absolute failure on the part of our government to be in control of this situation, after having had more than eight months of lead time to respond, simply demonstrates that big government leads to only one thing: Big Failure.

When the flu snorted its fat little butt onto the world stage last spring, President Obama sprang into action. A New York Times article recently outlined all of the wonderful things the administration did in an attempt to protect us peasants. A web site was introduced, Flu.org. Role playing exercises were introduced for public health officials and the media, because, with all due respect to the general public, the media is that important. Interestingly enough, no columnist for this paper was invited to participate. The president even added a swine flu update to his intelligence briefing. And, as if all of that were not enough, Sesame Street characters were called in to tell all of us how to sneeze in both English and Spanish. The one thing the administration did not do was figure out how to produce an adequate supply of vaccine.

The administration told the country that there would be 120 million doses of vaccine by the end of October. Less that 24 million were available. Initially, the vaccine manufacturers were blamed. That pig did not fly. The vaccine is actually grown in eggs from a seed strain. The amount of vaccine ultimately available is dependent on the crop yield. The pig flu vaccine does not grow well and has produced less vaccine. While problematic, it is a fact known to the government since the production began. The manufacturers yield counts are transparent and provided to the government. It was clear very early on that the government estimates were way off.

Why not just grow more? A weed called red tape, more noxious than the thistles that plague many Platte County farms, has choked production. GlaxoSmithKline is waiting to ramp up production of more vaccine. Although its vaccine was submitted for approval in early September, due to government red tape, it has yet to be approved for production.

As with every other major domestic issue it has tackled over the last hundred years, the government over promised, under delivered and is now attempting to shift the blame. This same government that cannot even figure how to bring an adequate supply of flu vaccine to the public wants you to believe that it can handle all of your health care needs. Don't eat the slop they are trying to feed you or you might get slaughtered.

(Former Democrat now Independent Russ Purvis provides weekly commentary only in your Landmark. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

OFFICEHOLDERS GIVE PUBLIC ONE GIANT SCREW

From the 10/28/09 issue

Ignore the fact that the unemployment rate continues to rise. Ignore the fact that seniors will receive no social security cost of living increase this year. Ignore the fact that even the United States Congress voted not to accept an automatic salary increase next year. Our elected leaders in Platte County know something all of us do not: the economy has recovered! If it has not, why, with the exception of Jim Plunkett, would they vote to give themselves a 6% raise after the 2010 election?

It is exactly this type of action that leads the general public to distrust politicians. As a nation, we are in the midst of what has come to be viewed as the most challenging economic environment since the great depression. For this group to decide that a salary increase is warranted shows that they are deaf and blind to financial reality or they are simply hogs at the trough, trying to get all they can while they can. Either way, the action leads to an obvious question: Should any of the elected officials that voted for the raise be re-elected? The simple answer is no.

How did this happen? As reported in The Landmark last week, the Platte County Salary Commission met and voted for the raises. The Commission is made up of the elected officials in Platte County. The county judges and county prosecutor are not a part of the commission. The judges' salaries and the prosecutor's salary are set by the State of Missouri. Sheriff Dick Anderson, Presiding Commissioner Betty Knight, Collector Donna Nash, Treasurer Bonnie Brown, Recorder Gloria Boyer, Assessor Lisa Pope, County Clerk Sandy Krohne, Public Administrator Terry Edwards, and Auditor Siobhann Williams all voted for the raise.

In this time of partisan bickering, the vote can only be considered one small step for bipartisanship, and one giant screw in the backside for the citizens of Platte County, Missouri.

Why did it happen? According to Sheriff Anderson, increasing the base salaries of elected officials is necessary to attract qualified candidates. To believe that argument is to believe the premise that our current elected officials will not seek re-election without a pay raise waiting on the other side of the election. Furthermore, based on Sheriff Anderson's premise, any currently elected official that decides to run with no pay raise is, by definition, not qualified to hold office.

Sheriff Anderson also argues that the increased salaries are necessary or elected officials will not treat the offices as fulltime jobs. Several of the offices do not need to be full-time jobs. That being the case, salaries should be cut. Even without addressing that obvious issue, the Sheriff's argument is without merit. Anyone running for elected office in Platte County knows that each office is considered a full time job. If a person is not prepared to give his or her full attention to the job he or she should not run. Anyone that is elected and does not give his or her full attention to the office should be removed.

The action by the Platte County Salary Commission demonstrates the need for change, even at the local level. Our county officials have lost touch with the people that they have been elected to represent. Unless they immediately reconsider the pay raise issue, we need to remind them from whence they came, by voting them out of office in 2010.

(Russ Purvis was chair of the Platte County Democrats until the Democratic Party left him. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

HEALTH CARE 'DEFORM' WILL NOT BE FREE

From the 10/28/09 issue

The storm clouds of health care deform continue to circle. The real storm has not started yet. As it stands there are still no less than five competing plans circling overhead. Occasionally, there is a little thunder in the form of a long winded diatribe by one of our elected, nattering nabobs from the left or the right. However, the devil is in the details when it comes to reform. As of right now, all of Washington D.C. is casting about for the biggest set of horns, the sharpest pitchfork and the longest tail.

The only bit of truth to emerge from the ongoing health care saga is that the numbers relating to the cost are completely bogus. In an article in the Oct. 19th edition of the Washington Post, Phill Ellis, a senior analyst with the Congressional Budget Office admitted as much. Ellis has been primarily responsible for analyzing the cost of the proposals that are being kicked around the capitol. According to Ellis, the CBO is “always putting out these estimates: This is going to cost $1.042 trillion exactly…But you sort of want to add, you know, your mileage may vary.”

As our government continues down the path of socialized medicine, a path that will place over one sixth of our economy under direct governmental control, it has no idea how much it will cost. But to keep the masses in check, and provide political cover, our so-called leaders call in the CBO to make up a number. To its credit, the CBO has often come back with a higher number than the central planners would like. But the reality is that any number provided by the CBO is likely to be low because the analysis begins by utilizing a model that Ellis compares to the SimCity computer game.

No matter what you hear from the government, health care reform, at least of the type currently being considered under the various plans, will not be free. You will pay more than you do now. The payment may be in the form of a direct tax on your income, by taxing you for carrying your own private insurance plan, or by paying more for goods and services, as retailers are forced to raise prices to cover the increased health care taxation they will be forced to pay. If you do not believe this fact, consider that the government is actually arguing that a portion of health care reform will be paid by recovering fraud and abuse in the Medicare system.

If the government is capable of recovering massive quantities of our money from Medicare abusers why has it not already done so? The answer is simply because it cannot. It is broken. Special interests rule the day and protect the abusers. If Medicare is so full of fraud and abuse, what does that tell us about the amount of theft of our tax dollars that will occur under Obamacare? It is mind boggling to consider.

One other number to remember when considering health care deform is 25 million. That is the number of people that will remain uninsured even after the government's socialized medicine experiment becomes a reality. So in the end, no matter what the cost, health care deform fails to even accomplish its one-time stated goal of providing health care to all of the uninsured in the United States.

It kind of makes me long for the days when a $600 toilet seat was considered government waste. At least the toilet seat performed its stated function.

(Russ Purvis, former Democrat now Independent, can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

IT'S OFFICIAL: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS LEFT HIM

From the 10/14/09 issue

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Polonius gives his son Laertes a piece of advice that has survived the ages: “To thine own self be true.” To remain true to myself, I have found it necessary to resign as the chairman of the Platte County Democratic Party Central Committee. I have been asked why I have decided to do this now while the Democratic Party is in power. I will attempt to address that question with this week's column.

First and foremost, the leadership of the Democratic Party including President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, has because of belief in the cause, or simple self interest, moved the party so far to the left that I can no longer play an active role. The nationalization of the auto industry and the banking system has left me cold. The continued attempt to socialize medicine makes my blood boil.

I feel a little like Ronald Reagan when he said “I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.” With regard to social issues I am still firmly left of center. I support a state's right to allow gay marriage. I believe that marijuana should be legalized. I know stem cell research will lead to amazing, life saving discoveries.

On the other hand, I know that the alleged threat of global warming is a joke as firmly, and with as much conviction, as I am convinced that if you give people a fish they will eat for a day, but if you teach people to fish they will be able to eat forever. I believe that a quality education is a necessity for success and that our current educational system is failing. The failure can be traced directly to a lack of competition among providers of this necessary resource. Finally, I know that allowing government to rule over us rather than represent us is the sure path to tyranny.

I have always considered myself a John F. Kennedy Democrat. JFK would not recognize the Democratic Party as it exists today. It was JFK who said, “I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.” I too believe in the power of human dignity, human liberty, the human heart and the human mind. The agenda that has been set by current leadership of the Democratic Party seeks to replace the human element with bureaucratic mandates handed down from on high.

Democrats will do well to remember JFK's words regarding government: “I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.” The Democratic Party has disregarded these principles--the party's one “True Compass.”

For all of these reasons, I have resigned. I find myself now in the strange position of being an “Independent.” It is a category that is growing by leaps and bounds. You are all welcome to join me. Maybe together we can provide real hope and accomplish real change.

(Russ Purvis, our former Democrat columnist and now a true Independent, can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

PREDICTION: DEMOCRATS FACE A HARD WINTER

From the 10/7/09 issue

It is beginning to feel like fall in this part of the country. My thoughts always seem to bounce around as the leaves begin to change. The result is all kinds of random thoughts.

One thought that has bounced in and out of my brain for the last week is why on earth someone with the last name of Nixon would allow himself to be caught up in a controversy that is now beginning to look like a cover up? There is no easy solution to “crappergate," however, immediate steps can be taken to wipe away the problem. The Nixon administration must put together, and release, an accurate timeline outlining what everyone knew and when they knew it. If anyone intentionally lied about any aspect of the issue, terminate the liar(s) immediately. If any criminal acts have been committed, cooperate with the prosecution.

Obama is beginning to feel pressure regarding Afghanistan, but for the wrong reason. The right wing media has ginned up an issue regarding President Obama, General McChrystal and the fact that they have had very little direct contact. It is called the military chain of command. Information flows up and down the chain. If Obama had inserted himself in the way that the screamers on the right now argue that he should have, they would all be labeling him a military dictator. Bush and Rumsfeld regularly jumped the chain of command. The mess in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted from their actions.

The real pressure that Obama should be feeling is to ignore McChrystal's request for more troops and to leave Afghanistan completely. The argument for staying is based on the false premise that our leaving will represent defeat and that it will inevitably result in another terrorist attack in the United States. How can it be classified as a defeat when the original reason for entering Afghanistan was to kill or capture Bin Laden and break up his network? That group now largely operates out of Pakistan.

The U.S. will simply be leaving land that the enemy it is chasing no longer occupies and disengaging itself from a civil war it should not be involved in. What will then happen is that the country will remain the backward cesspool that it has always been. The hard reality is that the world is full of cesspools and the United States should not be in the business of trying to clean all of them up. We have too many issues of concern at home.

Health care deform? The beat goes on. Competing plans of limited value continue to circulate around Washington D.C. Politicians continue to tell us that this debacle represents positive change for America. At the same time, they have not been able to demonstrate an ability to efficiently operate even the most basic of programs, let alone something as large and complex as nationalized health care.

2010 is just around the corner and the long range forecast for Democratic candidates is mostly cloudy chance of storms. At least in this part of Missouri, successful candidates are going to have to convince voters that they do not embrace the far left political beliefs of Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is simply not a Democrat. She is a socialist. Unfortunately, every Democrat suffers when she opens her mouth.

Fall may just be getting started, but I predict that Democrats face a hard winter.

(Russ Purvis is The Landmark’s Democratic columnist. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

ON IRAN, THE WORLD CAN'T AFFORD TO GO WRONG

From the 9/30/09 issue

Iran is like deja vu all over again. Iran’s behavior, and the world’s response to it, so closely parallels the response to the North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons that I half expect Iran to begin demanding shipments of rice.

Both North Korea and Iran are ruled by nuts. What makes the Iranian situation much scarier is that Iran possesses the world’s third largest oil reserves and is much more strategically located geographically than North Korea. The oil wealth provides Iran with the ability to quickly become a nuclear super power. Its geographic location makes it an immediate threat.

To compound the problem, Iran has demonstrated that it already possesses long range missile technology that appears to be far superior to the North Koreans. Finally, if all that is not bad enough, Iran has now admitted to possessing a second facility where it is busy developing nuclear technology.

All of this is playing out as high level officials from the United States prepare to meet with the Iranians. This meeting is supposed to cover a host of issues. However, Secretary of State Clinton has stated that the nuclear issue will be at the top of the list. But what cards do we have to play that will force Iran to change direction?

The Iranians have always insisted that the their nuclear program is peaceful and they will not shut it down. That being the case, a negotiated settlement seems out of the question.

Sanctions are another option. Unfortunately, sanctions have historically been unsuccessful in resolving issues with rogue nations. The usual result is a hardening of the rogue nation’s resolve. However, there is already a healthy opposition movement in Iran. If sanctions against the country can be effectively coupled with support for the opposition movement, maybe they can work. Unfortunately, a real opportunity to support the opposition was squandered when the United States did not strongly support the opposition after the Iranian “elections.”

The final option is the use of military force. The world community, except for Israel, has shown very little desire to consider a military option. That option is very limited. The United States is not in a position to go it alone with a full scale invasion. Our military is already stretched too thin - a fact not lost on the Iranians. For this reason alone, President Obama is correct in reconsidering Afghanistan. Bringing those troops home will open up a host of other military options with regard to Iran.

One available military option is the use of drones, smart bombs and missiles to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. However, that option requires 100% certainty that all targets are known and 100% accuracy when striking the targets. Falling short will likely result in the Iranians using anything that has not been wiped out in an attack on Israel.

There are no easy answers. President Obama is correct that the United States cannot be expected to face this threat alone. How his administration deals with bringing all of the necessary players on board will be a true test of his foreign policy skills. Iran is one area where the world cannot afford to get it wrong.

(Russ Purvis is The Landmark's official Democratic columnist. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

'TAX THE FAT' FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM REVENUE

From the 9/23/09 issue

In one form or another, health care reform is going to pass. How it is going to be funded remains to be seen. Anyone that states that it will be deficit neutral is lying. Even a scaled back program will blow a hole in the budget. A revenue source must be found to fund whatever bloated behemoth finally becomes the law of the land. Since our elected officials do not want to discuss funding, I will. The answer is simple: TAX THE FAT! To be more precise I propose taxing sugar and fat; however, “tax the fat” makes for a catchier slogan.

We are a fat nation. The statistics are mind boggling. Only 13% of the population was obese in 1962. By 1994 the rate of obesity reached 23%. Today over a third of the population is now considered to be obese and almost two thirds is considered to be overweight. Childhood obesity has tripled in the last two decades. During the Middle Ages being a bit of a porker was considered to be a status symbol. It demonstrated one's ability to afford to eat while avoiding hard manual labor, at a time when people were, as a rule, as tall as a height challenged leprechaun and weighed less than a field mouse. But times have changed.

According to the Center for Disease Control, obesity increases the risk for cancer, heart disease, type II diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, high cholesterol, osteoarthritis and infertility. Children are now developing type II diabetes, a disease once found only in adults, as a direct result of the obesity epidemic in this country.

There is no complex reason for why the nation has become so fat. In fact, it is quite simple. Americans eat too much. Science Daily, in the May 9, 2009 edition, reported on the results of a recent scientific study which concluded that “weight gain in the American population seems to be virtually all explained by eating more calories.” The problem is simple but its consequences, as they relate to medical costs, are huge. The solution is as simple as the problem. Put down the fork and eat fewer calories than are being burned and weight will decrease.

Any version of health care reform is going to be burdened by the cost of treating preventable ailments caused by obesity. It simply makes sense to offset at least a portion of the cost by taxing the foods most responsible for weight gain. Fast food, soda and other highly processed foods should all be taxed. Everyone with half of a brain knows that this food is fattening, full of empty calories and of little nutritional value. I am not advocating eliminating an individual's right to make such poor food choices; however, the rest of us should be forced to subsidize this behavior by paying for the costly treatment made necessary by the conditions caused by being obese.

The tax will benefit society by providing a source of funding for healthcare. At the same time it may make some people reconsider what they eat. There is a vocal minority that argues we should just accept obese and overweight individuals without questioning the health risks or discussing the costs to society. Big may be beautiful, but it also places an unfair burden on society and can lead to a premature death.

(Russ Purvis is The Landmark’s Democratic columnist. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

NO INSTITUTION SHOULD BE TOO BIG TO FAIL

Posted 9/18/09

There was no birthday cake and cards were not exchanged; however, the first birthday of the collapse of Lehman Brothers occurred this past week. As a part of the non-celebration of the catastrophe, President Obama delivered a combative speech to Wall Street, calling for immediate wide spread changes in the regulatory framework governing the financial industry. According to the president, “We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses.” In the financial centers of the world, such activity is considered a part of the free market. So, needless to say, Wall Street is not cheering the president's speech.

President Obama has proposed a whole host of new regulations and new bureaucracies, such as a new consumer finance protection agency. But the elephants that remain in the room are the alleged “too big to fail” financial institutions that played the largest role in the economic calamity that is just showing signs of healing. So far, they appear to be coming out of this mess of their own making smelling like a rose. In fact, they now control a larger concentration of the financial markets than they did prior to the meltdown.

Meanwhile, on Main Street USA, smaller community and regional banks have been left to swallow a big old _ _ _ _ sandwich. I deal with banks and bankers a great deal. The consensus among bankers, not Wall Street market makers and exotic instrument traders, but bankers, is that they are currently overly regulated. Smaller banks have seriously curtailed, or have completely stopped, making real estate investment loans. Regulators have told these banks that they need to have a smaller concentration of such loans.

At a time when the entire nation is still worried about what to do about reviving the housing market, regulators are shutting off the blood supply to the one group that may be able to rescue it, real estate investors. If the banks cannot make the loans, the investors cannot purchase. As a result, properties remain vacant and foreclosures continue to rise. Why should we believe any new regulations will correct this problem?

Rather than trying to refashion the regulatory framework in such away that the regulators become larger than the institutions they are charged with watching over, would it not make more sense to simply make sure that no institution is too big to fail? Take a page from Teddy Roosevelt's old trust-busting play book and carve up some of these behemoths. Ma Bell was one of the last companies to suffer this fate. Consumers wound up better off for it. More competition, better rates and better service resulted.

No institution can be considered too big to fail. If that can be accomplished, competition will flourish, the credit markets will thaw and profits will continue to be made. On the other hand, simply adding another layer of regulation to the industry will lead to a long frozen winter for the credit markets and an ever increasing number of local and regional bank failures. It is not time to make a run on your local bank yet; however, I would start making room in your mattress. In the long run, sleeping on it may be the safest way to protect what savings you have left.

(Russ Purvis is The Landmark’s Democratic columnist. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO LEAVE AFGHANISTAN NOW

Posted 9/11/09

As the month of August came and went we fought a war of words here at home over health care. In Afghanistan a real war, involving bullets, death and carnage continued to rage.

The Soviets spent nine years in Afghanistan and during that time killed over a million people. In 1989 the Soviets left defeated. The British had 16,000 massacred while attempting to retreat from Kabul in the mid 1800s. Shortly thereafter, the British left Afghanistan en masse. In the course of modern history, no foreign power has conquered Afghanistan or imposed its version of a civilized government on the country.

In late 2001, the United States entered Afghanistan. At the time the country was considered to be the “tip of the spear” in the war on terror. Osama Bin Laden was thought to be hiding out there. Bin Laden's head on a platter was the desire of almost every man, woman and child in the United States. Bin Laden has not been in Afghanistan for the better part of the last eight years, yet our military remains in that God forsaken part of the world. The question, whether you consider yourself to be a Republican or Democrat, is WHY?

It has never been the stated goal of the United States to conquer Afghanistan; however, we have been attempting to do a fair amount of nation building. Billions of dollars and countless American lives have been lost in this folly. Our government is not treating Afghanistan like a war. It is engaged in a limited action. In our last limited action, Vietnam, we measured success by body count. Body counts are no longer in favor so we discuss more general ideals and speak in platitudes about the future of the country. Meanwhile, warlords rule the day and our hand selected president, Hamid Karzai, has been caught stuffing the ballot box to get re-elected.

Afghanistan is a circle jerk. Our troops have their hands tied by arcane rules of engagement while our leaders dither over what to do next. What we need to do is leave and leave now. Rarely do I agree with George Will, however, on this issue he is correct. To those who argue that staying in Afghanistan is crucial to winning the alleged “war on terror,” consider the fact that it is common knowledge that the real heart of the terror threat we fear operates out of Pakistan. If we can isolate terrorists in Pakistan without an invasion we should be able to keep track of a country of goat herders and poppy peddlers without staying in the country.

The President has actually been considering committing more troops to Afghanistan. That is a mistake. It will take a fair amount of political courage to pull the trigger on withdrawing, but it is the right thing to do. Anything less, than a complete withdrawal of all troops, raises serious questions about President Obama.

He has never set forth a clear vision on Afghanistan, only calling it a “war of necessity.” Is it necessary to his political future or to the country's safety? No. The only thing that is necessary is for America to extract itself from the quagmire that is, was and will always be Afghanistan.

(Russ Purvis is The Landmark’s designated Democratic columnist. In an unrelated development, he just happens to also serve as chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

COMMISSIONERS HAVE SIMPLY BEEN ASLEEP AT SWITCH

Posted 9/3/09

As summer winds down and many of us have been preoccupied with vacations or getting kids back to school, Platte County Auditor Siobhann Williams has been doing her best to push and prod the Platte County Commissioners to do their jobs. Unfortunately, that is a task akin to herding cats.

Last week Williams did her job and let the commissioners and the public know that 2010 general fund revenues are projected to be five to six hundred thousand dollars less than this year. That may not sound like a lot when considering the amount the federal government is spending; however, it is a huge amount here in Platte County - unless you are Commissioner Kathy Dusenbery. From her point of view, Williams is simply not a “team player.” I am sure she can provide more detail via her Twitter account if anyone is interested.

Williams released more chilling economic news this week. A $1.4 million dollar shortfall is projected in roads sales tax proceeds allocated to the repayment of bond debt. Williams first brought this matter to the attention of the commissioners in a memo dated February 14, 2008.

In February of 2008 the shortfall was projected to be $600,000. At that time Williams told the commissioners that the issue needed to be addressed in order to avoid a “budget crisis” when the final bond payments become due in 2013. Did the Platte County Commission immediately address the issue? No. Did the commissioners do anything at all regarding the issue from February 2008 until now? No. Apparently, they were too busy. Now the projected shortfall has more than doubled. If no action is taken to remedy the situation it may increase again next year.

Why is there a projected shortfall in the first place? Again, that is the fault of the commissioners. The commissioners changed the formula for allocating revenue raised by the roads tax after the bonds were issued. The new formula left less money for bond repayment and now Platte County faces an ever increasing shortfall.
The commissioners have simply been asleep at the switch on this issue. They have been aware of this problem for almost two years and have done nothing to address it. This type of arrogance, foolhardiness, or simple incompetence, cannot be tolerated. Dealing with the issue of roads in Platte County is a difficult process; however, it must be done.

To simply ignore a potentially budget busting problem because it involves hard work and hard choices demonstrates not only a lack of leadership and dereliction of duty by the commissioners, but a clear requirement on the part of the citizens of Platte County to remove Betty Knight, Jim Plunkett and Kathy Dusenbery from office. We can start with Presiding Commissioner Betty Knight.

Knight is up for re-election in 2010. I will be sorely disappointed if she even makes it to the general election. Platte County Republicans should find a fiscally conservative member of the party and defeat her in the primary. Perhaps then the Republican candidate and Democratic candidate can have constructive discussions about how to address the problems the current commission has created and how to correct them.

In the meantime, keep up the good work Siobhann. At least Platte County has someone keeping an eye on the commissioners until we replace them.

(Reach our Democratic columnist via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

WHO WOULD GET PROSECUTED FOR TORTURE TACTICS?

Posted 8/28/09

So, there will be a criminal investigation into the CIA's interrogation tactics after all. Is this good, bad or just plain ugly for the country? At the end of the day it comes down to the fact that we are a nation of laws, not men. If crimes have been committed they must be punished.

If the country is to regain much of the credibility that it appears to have lost as the leader of the free world, the one country that does not tolerate human rights abuses, then this investigation is long overdue. Opening up the windows and airing the house out is the surest way to get rid of the stench of secrecy and put to rest, one way or the other, all of the rumors surrounding the interrogation issue.

The CIA's inspector general investigated the matter five years ago and the report was declassified and released Monday. It is apparent from the report that CIA interrogators used some rough tactics including allegedly threatening to kill a detainee's children and threatening to rape another detainee's mother.

There are those who will argue that the detainee's were rough men and, therefore, any rough treatment was not only justified, but necessary to protect the country. It is a simplistic argument that does not stand up under close scrutiny. Even the CIA's inspector general's report was unable to state that the interrogation techniques helped to prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States.

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder ordered the current criminal investigation. Holder stated that “as a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations.” He has appointed prosecutor John Durham to lead the investigation.
Durham has already been investigating the CIA regarding the destruction of tapes relating to some detainee interrogations. The tapes in question were destroyed by the CIA in 2005 and were never turned over to the 911 commission. This action by the CIA has certainly done nothing to quell suspicion the interrogators may have crossed the line. Durham's experience with that investigation gives him a solid background for moving forward with this new probe.

What is unclear is who will be prosecuted if a determination is made that laws were broken. President Obama has stated that interrogators will not face prosecution if legal guidelines in place at the time the interrogations were conducted were followed. If the interrogators were operating under the belief that the interrogation techniques were legal in accordance with the “enhanced interrogation” techniques approved by the Bush administration following 911, they should not face prosecution. The question is whether the Bush administration's belief in the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques will be viewed as valid legal guidelines.

If the Bush administration's beliefs are not considered legal guidelines, then who gets prosecuted? It should not be the field officers that were following the guidelines. Maybe consideration should be given prosecuting members of the Bush Justice Department that used ‘means justifies the ends’ logic and intentional misrepresentation of the law to justify torture. Maybe Dick Cheney should be charged.

(Russ Purvis is The Landmark’s Democratic columnist. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

SENATOR KIT BOND WAS NOT ABOVE A PETTY DISPUTE

Posted 8/20/09

With Richard Nixon it was tape recordings, with Missouri Republicans it appears that e-mail will be remembered as the reason for their undoing. First it was baby Blunt and his e-mail scandal which many believe led to his serving only one term Missouri Governor. Now e-mails are coming back to bite the behind of Senator Kit Bond and his involvement in the 2006 firing of former U. S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Todd Graves.

The Bond scandal reads like a Shakespeare play. It has villains, intrigue, pits brother against brother and for Democrats, contains more than a little bit of humor. For anyone that might not already be aware, Senator Kit Bond and Congressman Sam Graves do not get along. The operating theory for why is that Bond does not care for the congressman's former chief of staff, Jeff Roe.

Apparently unable to disembowel Sam Graves by conventional political means, Bond decided to use an old mobster trick and inflict pain on him through his family, by firing his brother Todd. Todd Graves was no political neophyte when all of this drama began to play out. He has been around Platte County politics since the early 1990s serving as Platte County Prosecutor prior to being appointed to the U.S. Attorney post by President Bush in 2001.

The House Judiciary Committee has an ongoing investigation concerning certain U.S. Attorney firings that occurred in 2006, including the firing of Todd Graves. Depending on the outcome, criminal charges may be filed. During the course of the investigation, there has been much testimony and e-mail produced showing Bond's involvement in the firing of Todd Graves. Imagine Senator Bond having to post a bond.

Bond has consistently denied that he had any involvement in the firing of Todd Graves, and has blamed any appearance that he did on staffers that kept him in the dark on the subject. Unfortunately for Bond, the e-mail trail conflicts mightily with his version of events. Evidence suggests that Bond may have even held up the appointment of a federal judge to get his way.

Congressman Graves was told that if he wanted his brother to keep his job, Bond wanted something from him, and it was not the head of Alfredo Garcia and a bucket of warm fat. The head of Jeff Roe would have been sufficient. Sam Graves said no and Bond apparently cut a deal with the White House to force Todd Graves out. Ultimately, a Bond cousin, John Wood, replaced Todd Graves.

Many might argue that Bond was really trying to do something good by separating Jeff Roe from power. But keep in mind; he was not doing it because he cared at all about Roe's tactics against Democrats. No, this was personal. He thought Roe was attacking him. In Bond's world, bare-knuckled political maneuvering is fine, so long as he is not the one getting punched in the mouth.

For Democrats there is a certain amount of humor involved in watching the Republicans eat their own. And if we didn't laugh we would have to cry about the fact that while he should have been working for the good of the country, maybe even attempting to forge a path that would have avoided our current economic predicament, Kit Bond was spending his time embroiled in a petty dispute involving a congressman's chief of staff.

(Always working for the good of the country is The Landmark’s Democratic columnist Russ Purvis. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

CELEBRATE THAT PROTESTORS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK

Posted 8/16/09

Who would have thought that health care reform would be difficult? Apparently, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House majority leader Steny Hoyer are the last two people on earth to realize this fact. In a recent editorial in USA Today, co-written by Hoyer and Pelosi, the two stated that “[h]ealth care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts.” They went on to say that “[t]he failure of past attempts is a reminder that health insurance reform is a defining moment in our nation's history it is well worth the time it takes to get it right.”

The glaring question raised by that last statement is why then was there such a huge push to pass House version of this monstrosity so quickly, before the August recess? The answer can be found at every town hall meeting that has happened, will happen or has been cancelled. The Obama administration has lost a majority of the American people's support for its 1000 page version of healthcare reform. Failing to meet the August deadline has allowed the average American time to consider what has been proposed and, in many instances oppose it, sometimes loudly. Obama and Pelosi are on the verge of pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

It was not that many months ago when the majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, agreed that some type of health care reform was necessary. Obama, Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid have, through overreaching, inexperience and sheer arrogance, now changed a large percentage of Americans' opinions on the subject. Not only do they not support the Obama plan, they now oppose healthcare reform in general.

Obama's inexperience is showing. To be effective, a strong President of the United States must not only be a master of rhetoric but also a master of the House and Senate. Lacking that skill, Obama is left to rely on Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate. Both Pelosi and Reid are so far to the left that they are completely unhinged from reality.

Power has also made all three of them arrogant. They truly believed that theycould push an overreaching bill through the House and Senate that does nothing less than nationalize healthcare, while at the same time claiming that it will do no such thing. The American people do not buy it and now, in the dog days of August, a very vocal pushback has begun. Further demonstrating the arrogance born of power, and insulation from the real world, Obama, Pelosi and Reid have mishandled this the outcry over health care reform and are on the verge of losing the ability to reform health care for another generation.

First Obama attempted to brush the protests aside claiming the protestors are part of a manufactured protest cobbled together by the drug companies and talk radio. While a few of the protestors may be part of an organized effort to discredit the plan, there are simply too many for Obama's argument to withstand serious scrutiny. Even if there is some truth to it, it is more than a little hypocritical for Obama to complain. He is proud of the fact that he was a “community organizer and one of his closest advisors, David Axelrod, invented the concept of “astroturfing”- the art of generating artificial support or opposition to an issue. He owns a company that does just that.

Pelosi and Obama then made the mistake of attempting to smear the protestors, classifying them as an angry mob. Pelosi has gone so far as to compare protestors to Nazis and called the protests un-American. Far from helping, this has only galvanized the opposition into an us against the government movement.

The people are engaged. The protests show democracy at work. Agree or disagree with the protestors' position, you should celebrate the fact that they have the right to speak what they believe is truth to power.

(Contact Russ Purvis, chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee, at russp842@yahoo.com)

PICKING OUR POCKET TO GET REELECTED

Posted 8/7/09

Here is a question to ponder: How many of the people that have cashed in on the government's cash for clunkers program oppose welfare? The program is exactly that, a welfare program. One taxpayer uses other taxpayers' money to buy a car - a simple redistribution of wealth. Now the House wants to waive its magic wand and throw another two billion at the program. Keep in mind that the government does not have this money and will have to borrow it.

The Wall Street Journal has summed up the situation perfectly. “[T]his is crackpot economics. The subsidy won't add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer's pocket from someone else's, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway.”

While the House has gone wild for the program, at least some in the Senate are demonstrating restraint. Without action by the Senate the additional two billion will not become a part of the program. By all accounts, without the additional money, this welfare program will end on Friday. Our own Senator McCaskill is opposed to the additional funding. McCaskill stated on a Twitter message regarding the subject that “[w]e simply cannot afford any more taxpayer $ to extend cash for clunkers. Idea was to prime the pump, not subsidize the auto purchases forever.”

Even Senator Feinstein is balking at supporting additional funding for the program. According to The Hill, higher mileage standards for the auto industry will be the price for her support and that of Senator Susan Collins. The question remains as to whether the auto industry will be willing to strike such a Faustian Bargain for a few sheckles of silver.

The program is not yet dead, not with Harry Reid still alive and kicking, leading the Senate from one ill-conceived and costly idea to another. Reid plans to take up a bill to fund the additional two billion sometime during the next week.

The cash for clunkers program does clearly demonstrate that the American public can spur the economy when it feels that it has the money to do so. It is more than merely arguable that the program has proven that the economy would be much better off right now if the government had not wasted $787 billion on an alleged stimulus, a program that has done nothing to put money directly into the pockets of Americans where it might then be pumped back into all sectors of the economy.

Instead of printing money and increasing the deficit, the administration should have given serious consideration to across the board tax cuts on individuals and businesses. It did not. Instead it classified such action as a failed policy of the past, which really means tax cuts seemed too Republican.

A lower tax rate is not a partisan issue. We fought a revolution, in part, over just this type of issue. A lower tax rate puts more money in everyone's pocket. That money is invested and the government in turn generates more taxes, even at the lower rate, due to increased economic activity. On the local level, this is the exact reason that a higher than average sales tax will hurt Platte County over the long term. Shoppers will go to areas with the lower rate, resulting in fewer goods and services being sold here.

The bottom line is that it is our money that Washington is using, and no matter how they want to dress it up, they are picking our collective pocket in the interest of getting reelected and accumulating power. Any benefit to the American people is coincidental.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

MISSOURI NEEDS A BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT

Posted 7/30/09

I am a dog lover. Right now one of my favorite dog colors is blue. The Blue Dog Democrats are standing up and asserting some control over the “communization” of health care. Hopefully they will stop it dead in its tracks. Who are the Blue Dogs? Truth be told, they are the real face of the majority of the Democratic Party. They are fiscally conservative legislators concerned with the financial stability of the United States.

The Blue Dogs were formed in 1995 and currently have 51 members. Unfortunately, Missouri does not have a Blue Dog to call its own. Our closest Blue Dog is Dennis Moore. He lives over the fence, representing the 3rd District of Kansas.

So far, much to the consternation of Speaker Pelosi, the Blue Dogs have succeeded in slowing down the pace of the race to pass a new healthcare bill. They have raised legitimate questions about the government competing with private insurance carriers, the funding of the legislation, and its impact on small business.

The far left of our party is very unhappy which means the Blue Dogs are doing something right. Last Friday, uber liberal Henry Waxman of California held a press conference to state that there would be no further negotiation with the Blue Dogs. That tune quickly changed. The Blue Dogs are currently negotiating potential compromise legislation.

Without the Blue Dogs’ support there will be no health care reform. The votes to pass it simply do not exist. Therefore, it is time to take a breath and give due deliberation to what has been proposed and what might actually work. Yes, the two are different. There is no need for speed here. This is a marathon not a sprint.

It is a good thing that the Blue Dogs are working for all Americans, because the Republicans have abandoned the field. In a cowardly act of pure political warfare, they have decided to do nothing to help structure a bill that is actually good for the country. The architect of this plot is none other than Representative Roy Blunt.

Blunt is the head of the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group. Blunt has stated that the Republicans do have a plan; however, they are not going to present it. Blunt and the Republicans are going to take a pass on what will be the most wide ranging and costly piece of legislation of our lifetime.

Honestly, are Blunt and the rest of his Republican cronies too afraid, or simply too dumb to compete in the arena of ideas on this issue? Republicans have consistently stated that they support reform. If that is the case, put forth a plan. They could even adopt the voucher plan that I support if it will get a dialogue started.

Is this the type of leadership that the citizens of the State of Missouri can expect from Blunt if he is elected to the United States Senate? When the going gets tough will he always pout, take his ball and go home? On the bright side, he is making it easy for Carnahan to beat him - if he survives the primary.

There is blood in the water around Blunt and the sharks should be circling soon. It remains to be determined whether it will be Steelman or Graves that ultimately faces off against Blunt. Quite frankly, Graves matches up better against Carnahan than either Blunt or Steelman. As the Republicans hunt for a viable candidate, we Democrats need to congratulate the Blue Dogs, like Dennis Moore, that are looking out for us and keep searching for a Blue Dog in Missouri that we can call our own.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

IN PLATTE COUNTY, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IS A NON-PARTISAN ISSUE

Posted 7/24/09

I am happy to report that at least in Platte County, Missouri, fiscal responsibility is a non-partisan issue. At its July meeting, the Platte County, Democratic Party Central Committee, adopted the following resolution:

Whereas, the Platte County Democratic Party Central Committee feels it is necessary to, from time to time, express its position on certain matters essential to the well being of the citizens of Platte County; and

Whereas, the Platte County Democratic Party Central Committee demands its county government be accountable and fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars; and

Whereas, the Platte County Democratic Party Central Committee generally encourages parks and recreation be made accessible to all citizens in order to develop a higher-quality and more comprehensive standard of living; and

Whereas, the current ½ cent sales tax for parks is scheduled to expire and has been placed for renewal on the August 4, 2009 ballot.

Whereas, the Platte County Commission did not adequately explore other funding mechanisms, or a smaller sales tax, prior to placing the ½ cent sales tax on the ballot for renewal.

Whereas, the Platte County Democratic Party Central Committee recommends that the current county budget be prioritized in order to maintain current county services without raising taxes.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Platte County Democratic Party Central Committee stands in opposition to the ½ cent sales tax appearing on the August 4, 2009 ballot.

Likewise, the Platte County Republican Party Central Committee adopted a resolution opposing the proposed tax at its July meeting. No, hell has not frozen over. The two committees simply took the action each felt was necessary, and in the best interest of the citizens of Platte County. I commend the members of both committees that took this admittedly tough stand.

Neither the Republican or Democratic Party committees would have been forced to take such action if our elected county commissioners were doing their jobs. For example, if Commissioner Dusenbery spent half as much time considering the ramifications of renewing a half cent sales tax during this economic downturn as she does Twittering, she would have surely recognized the folly in renewing the tax at its present level.

Critics of our action argue that it is terrible and destructive to oppose parks. Such critics are putting forth a false premise which cannot and should not be accepted as the truth. Opposing the renewal of the sales tax does not mean that either committee opposes parks. Quite the opposite is true. We all support parks. At the same time, we support sound principles of fiscal responsibility and continued economic growth.

The Platte County Commission, by placing the half cent sales tax on the ballot, without giving consideration to alternative park financing, including a smaller sales tax, demonstrated its failure to comprehend the economic reality facing Platte County.

Platte County has one of the highest sales tax rates in the State of Missouri. In tough economic times it is necessary to bring that rate down to be competitive in the overall economic market. If that is not done, overall sales tax revenue will fall and the entire Platte County budget will be strained. The sales tax for parks is one area where the overall sales tax rate can be lowered and services will not be reduced. Unfortunately, the Platte County Commission did not look that deeply at the issue.

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, your central committees are looking out for you and Platte County as a whole on this issue because your Platte County Commission has failed to do so, either out of willful neglect or sheer stupidity.

(Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

INEXPERIENCE AND ARROGANCE
ARE RULING THE DAY

Posted 7/17/09

Have you ever been to a tractor pull? No, it is not some weird ride at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch. A tractor pull is a test of a hopped up piece of farm machinery's ability to pull an increasingly weighted sled for distance. When the weight becomes too difficult for the tractor, it can no longer move forward. In the hands of an inexperienced operator the tractor may even blow a motor trying to keep moving.

If you grew up in Platte County, as I did, I am sure you have seen this uniquely rural event. If you are new to the area, watch The Landmark, there should be one sometime this summer. My point is that our government's handling of domestic policy is beginning to resemble a tractor pull.

Consider overall domestic policy to be the tractor. The nation's economy is the tractor's motor and drive train. In experienced hands, it is a mighty machine, moving over great distances at a very quick speed. Unfortunately, this tractor is being operated by a government that should not be trusted to operate a riding lawn mower.

The first weight that, out of arrogance or stupidity, the whiz kids simply have not considered, is the burden of our two ongoing wars. While they are being carried out in foreign lands, they impact domestic policy as much, if not more, than the economic downturn.

The second weight is the economic downturn. An experienced tractor operator would quickly realize that simply giving the tractor more gas, in an attempt to travel at the same speed with increased weight, is not always the answer. It is a more complex problem involving decisions relating to the proper gear in which to pull from and the timing and amount of increased throttle to apply. Our government's answer to the economic problem has been to simply apply the gas. Would tax cuts have helped? Should the timing of increased government investment have been given greater consideration? Of course, but inexperience and arrogance have ruled the day and the tractor has slowed down considerably.

To this burden, our government has decided to pile on with cap and trade. The tractor, already slowed, will come to a grinding halt if this debacle is signed into law. First of all, the need for it is based on a faulty premise, supported by false “science,” that has become a religion to the true believers. Secondly, no qualified analyst, zilch, nada, believes that such stupidity will do anything positive for the environment. It will be like taking the spark plugs out of the economy. Without them the economy cannot function and all other domestic policy fails for lack of funding. At the same time, cap and trade will have as much impact on the environment as one man castrating himself in hopes of reducing world population.

Finally, universal healthcare is being pushed forward. It will literally blow the motor. I have previously outlined my suggestions for changes to the healthcare system. However, until we, as a nation, have the economy back on track, universal healthcare has to wait. The country can simply not afford it. Of course the government can never let the truth get in the way of what it considers a good idea or at least one that lines the pockets of elected representatives.

The reality we are facing as a nation is that this is not a tractor pull. As a citizen, whether you consider yourself a Democrat or a Republican, you cannot stand by like a spectator, swilling beer and complaining. Action has to be taken. Let this group of despots know how you feel. You can make phone calls, mail letters, e-mail or, in the case of Senator McCaskill, you can even send a tweet. I know, the word itself is emasculating, but the issues are too important and time is too short to worry about that. If this so-called government of the people, by the people and for the people does not listen, then we need to work together to vote each and every one of them out of office.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. He can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

THERE'S A FESTERING SORE FROM
O'FALLON THAT NEEDS ATTENTION

Posted 7/10/09

How do you know when your political party is on the ropes? When one of your party's stars resigns as governor in an effort to keep herself viable as a presidential contender while another of your party's stars, after screwing around on his wife, refuses to resign because his status as an irreparably damaged elected official is all he has left, your party is definitely on the ropes.

Everyone is by now aware of Gov. Mark Sanford's issues. This is the type of hypocritical person the party of “family values” keeps electing and it has hurt the Republican brand. Gov. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is worshiped by a large part of the Republican base. However, the power players in the Republican Party have done everything that they can since November to marginalize her.

The Republican Party is currently adrift on a rudderless ship. Palin's resignation can be compared to taking one of the ship's lifeboats and setting out to find dry land while the rest of the ship's crew stays on board, getting drunk on the strange brew of Obamanomics and feasting on government pork.

Much has been made by the talking heads in the media, including many Republicans, about Palin now being unelectable and a quitter. They are wrong. If we, as Democrats underestimate Palin, we do so at our peril. Whether you like her politics or not, it is foolish to believe that she does not possess a great deal of political talent. She rose too fast, far too fast, in a state where the Republican Party was well entrenched and largely did not support her, to be considered anything less than a skilled politician.

The political landscape for Palin prior to resigning was pretty easy to read. As sitting governor, she was facing a barrage of ethics complaints which required time and considerable personal money to defend. Any problems faced by the state between now and 2010 would be attached to her in any future campaign. Alaska is geographically undesirable as a location for running a presidential campaign and every trip to the lower forty-eight drew scrutiny. As long as she remained governor, she and her family remained popular targets for criticism. She was, and remains, the biggest fundraising draw in the Republican Party. A large part of the Republican base, that believes it is being largely ignored by the party in general, loved, and still loves Sarah Palin.
Her resignation as governor of Alaska is a big gamble. But if she is successful, she will be viewed, and rightly so, as a political genius. By resigning she eliminated the ethics complaints and the geography issue. As far as criticism goes, it will remain but will more likely than not be more muted.

The Republican Party needs Palin more than she needs the party structure. She can work on raising money for candidates in 2010, but on her terms. For every dollar she raises she can extract the promises and commitments necessary to be a contender in the 2012 election. She can likewise use the media on her own terms. She has already demonstrated that ability by utilizing Facebook and Twitter after her resignation, forcing “mainstream media” to report on what she had placed on those sites. She can also expand her base. She can be the conservative voice speaking out against Obama while pointing out all of the concessions and compromises being made by her likely opponents.

As Democrats should we favor this scenario? Obama should be able to beat Palin. But presidential elections sometimes have strange results. Not so long ago, a one-term senator with a funny name won it all.

(Chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee, Russ Purvis can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

THERE'S A FESTERING SORE FROM
O'FALLON THAT NEEDS ATTENTION

Posted 7/2/09

Republican, Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis has gone national. Has she become famous for the intelligent and well reasoned plans she has developed as the Chairperson of the Special Committee on Children and Families in the Missouri House of Representatives? If you answered “no” to that question you are correct. Davis has become infamous because she is a buffoon and is quite willing to put that trait on public display.

It has been apparent for some time that Davis may be a couple of bricks short of a load. However, such representatives are the rule rather than the exception on the Republican side of the aisle in Missouri, so no one gave it a lot of thought. A prime example of the odd things going on in the playground of her mind is the support she gave earlier this year to a lawsuit alleging that President Obama is not an American citizen. The suit actually alleges that his real name is Barry Soetoro and that he is Indonesian.

The allegations against President Obama are way out there, but it is her most recent statements that have really launched Davis as the face of the retarded right. For those that may not be aware, the Republican Party is made up of three separate groups: moderate; the far right; and those that have fallen off of the ledge of all reason, the retarded right. Cynthia Davis is quickly emerging as a leader of that select group.

Davis has taken issue with Missouri's Summer Food Service Program. The program is designed to supply food during the summer to low income children across the state that would, during the school year, receive reduced price or free meals at school. The goal is to attempt to make sure these children receive nutrition necessary to “grow and learn all year long,” according to Ann McCormack of the Missouri Health Department.

Davis has responded with the following mind bending remarks: “Why have meals at home with your loved ones if you can go to the government soup kitchen and get one for free? This could have the effect of breaking apart more families.” “The problem of childhood obesity has been cited as one of the most rapidly growing health problems in America. People who are struggling with lack of food usually do not have an obesity problem.” “Can't they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator.” “Tip: If you work for McDonalds, they will feed you for free during your break.”

To summarize the opinions of Davis: the family that starves together stays together; however, no one is starving because we are all becoming obese and not eating will cure that problem; but, apparently we can remain obese if we will just go to work at McDonalds. Folks, you cannot make this stuff up. Davis truly believes the tripe she is spewing.

Her comments have garnered her the honor of being named “Worst Person in the World” by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. In fact, he has now featured her on three separate occasions. For her part, Davis has not backed away from her comments.

Democrats and Republicans alike must band together to rid the state of this festering sore from O'Fallon. Missouri House Democratic Leader Paul LeVota has issued a letter to Republican Speaker Ron Richard, demanding that Davis be removed from the chairmanship of the Special Committee on Children and Families. So far Richard has not done so. And people wonder why we are Democrats. With Republicans like Davis, how can you be anything else?

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee and can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

PUSHING FOR A SALES TAX DURING AN ECONOMIC CRISIS?

Posted 6/26/09

“Where O' Where have the Platte County Republicans gone? Where O' where can they be?” Well, I can tell you one thing, they are certainly not currently sitting on the Platte County Commission. The current commission, if you have been following The Landmark’s reporting recently, is fully supporting the half cent sales tax for parks appearing on the Aug. 4 ballot.

To say that the current Platte County Commission spends money like a bunch of drunken sailors shows a great deal of disrespect--for drunken sailors. Where are all of you supposed conservative Republicans on this issue? Didn't you pitch Michael Short out of office and out of the Republican Party over crap like this?

Supporters of the park tax argue that during its first run it has allowed Platte County to add parks and amenities. That is great. However, the citizens of Platte County passed a tax of a limited duration. To assume that it should simply be renewed without thoughtful consideration shows that the Platte County Commissioners lack an understanding of purpose and a true lack of leadership.

Every Republican should have known Commissioner Dusenberry was a fiscal train wreck. But Republicans sowed the wind with that one and are now reaping the whirlwind. Plunkett? Well, he has simply gone AWOL.

What about the so-called leader of the Platte County Commission, Presiding Commissioner Betty Knight? It seems like Knight has been a commissioner since the beginning of time, or at least before Missouri was a state. During her tenure, I cannot recall a single issue on which she has really carried the water for Platte County. That is not to be confused with her always being there to take credit if something is accomplished. She is like former congressman Tom Coleman, only on the county level.

A perfect example of her lack of leadership is the county roads issue. Platte County still operates under an outdated system that fails to provide adequately surfaced roads throughout the county. I grew up on a gravel road in northern Platte County that was supposedly going to be paved thirty years ago. To this day it is still gravel. Of course such an issue requires thoughtful discourse and a great deal of time and energy. The current commissioners simply draw a check and move on.

Knight is supposed to have an economics degree of some sort, or home economics, the record is muddy on the issue. In any event, she has been on the commission long enough to understand the economic reality of pushing for a half cent sales tax during an economic crisis, when your county already has one of the highest, if not the highest, sales tax rates in the state. People will shop elsewhere, especially for bigger ticket items. In turn general revenue will be reduced.

As Platte County Democrats, we no longer can be labeled as the tax and spend party. The Platte County Republicans now own the title. I am issuing a simple challenge to the leadership of the Platte County Republican Party: Prove that you are conservative by opposing the tax now and by pushing Betty Knight out of office in 2010. Platte County Democrats will run a nice, fiscally conservative candidate, and we can all debate the real infrastructure issues facing the county. We Democrats will not be holding our collective breath that you are up to the challenge.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

HEALTH CARE VOUCHER SYSTEM IS THE ANSWER

Posted 6/19/09

Since last week's column addressing the health care debate, Republicans have offered nothing and President Obama has publicly stated that those opposing the government takeover of healthcare are “fear mongers” and “naysayers.” In other words, neither side has done anything constructive, but I digress.

Last week I offered my proposed solution--a Universal Health Care Voucher System (UHV). Under a UHV all Americans, including those currently on Medicare and Medicaid, federal employees and even elected government officials will be covered under one system. The federal government will issue a health care voucher in the name of every American citizen and anyone else residing in the country legally. With the voucher a person can obtain medical insurance on the open market that provides a guaranteed benefit similar to what federal employees currently receive. The insurance carrier will then receive the voucher as payment. Carriers can turn no one with a voucher down for the basic benefit. If an individual wants more extensive coverage, he or she can buy it. However the additional coverage will not be subsidized and the market will set the rate and decide whether to issue such coverage to particular individuals.

The system will work because of the pooling of risk created by insuring the entire population. By spreading the risk in this way the private insurance industry will be able to offset those that consume the largest amount of medical care with those that consume the least. The government itself will insure no one. With over 1300 carriers providing health insurance, the system will foster competition among the carriers and it is likely that most will offer a package containing more than the standard benefit guaranteed by the voucher to obtain and retain customers.

Under the UHV, there will be no need for employer based healthcare. The money employers are currently spending will either be used to provide pay increases or other benefits to employees, or will go toward the employer's bottom line. Either way, the money saved, approximately $700 billion per year, will find its way back into the overall economy. Additionally, there will be no need for the 2.9% “Medicare tax,” half of which is paid directly by the employer, the other half of which is deducted from every employee's salary. Here again, the money will find its way into the overall economy either by way of payroll and benefit increases or increased business profits.

The UHV will be funded by a national sales tax on goods and services. The money will necessarily have to be segregated from all other government accounts and the government should not have the ability to borrow from it as it has with social security.

Because such a great percentage of health care costs are caused by preventable diseases, a higher tax should be placed on goods that carry the greatest risk for creating health problems. For example, ninety percent of obesity is preventable and is caused by what a person eats. Place a higher tax on items such as soda, candy, and highly processed foods. Anyone can still make the choice to consume those goods; however, they will be paying a little more now toward the likelihood of consuming more health care later. The same goes for liquor and tobacco.

Such a tax, contrary to popular belief, is not regressive. Everyone will be insured and everyone will pay, including those that are here and not citizens, something toward the privilege depending on the consumption of goods and services. Those who make less generally consume less and will, therefore, be covered without as much out of pocket expense as a person that makes more and buys more goods and services.

The UHV is the best option available. For more information, I encourage you to read A Comprehensive Cure: Universal Health Care Vouchers by Ezekial J. Emanuel and Victor R. Fuchs.Much of the information provided in this column was drawn from that article. The bottom line is that under a UHV everyone will be insured.
Medicare and Medicaid will no longer be necessary. A dedicated funding mechanism will maintain the system. And, most importantly, the government will not socialize health care.

(Reach Russ, chair of the local Democratic Central Committee, at russp842@yahoo.com)

GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED
HEALTH CARE IS A FLAWED SYSTEM

Posted 6/12/09

To steal a line from the late, great Johnny Cash: “I hear a train a coming, it’s coming around the bend.” The train is named Universal Health Care and it is definitely coming. The only question is what type of train will it be when it arrives.

The debate over the issue is heating up in Washington. Like most political matters it has begun with both the Democrats and Republicans posturing. Some Democrats are pushing for a single payer system. In laymen's terms, a single payer system means that the government directly controls healthcare. It does such a wonderful job with Medicare, Medicaid and the alphabet soup of subparts to such programs, I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose such action.

In the other corner, some Republicans, the followers of Limbaugh, are demanding that Republicans oppose any and all attempts at healthcare reform on philosophical principle. What principle this group is alluding to is questionable. It cannot possibly be the “principle” of smaller, limited government. The Republican Party abandoned that “principle” under George W. Bush.

The real principle at work here is power. This crowd wants to be able to argue it had nothing to do with passing health care reform and then attempt to pick apart any flaws, real or made up, for political gain. So much for Republicans of that ilk caring about the American people.

For Republicans to refuse to engage on the issue is simply short sighted. There is going to be change and all voices need to be heard. I disagree with the administration's assertion that legislation has to be passed immediately. Any health care reform must be done right, that does not equate to right now.

Single payer is a terrible idea for many reasons. First and foremost, the federal government is not equipped, nor should it be, to manage the health care of every American properly and in a cost efficient manner. Countries where versions of such a system are in place have been less than a rousing success. Long waiting periods and large gaps in care are the norm.

Second, Medicare demonstrates that government controlled health care is a flawed system. Always on the verge of insolvency, it is driving doctors away from it in droves. It under pays for services and when it does pay, it first requires a rain forest to be cut down to complete the billing paperwork. It is a typical government bureaucracy at work.

Finally, single payer will all but destroy the insurance industry as we know it, creating even greater strain on our financial markets. Thousands of workers in that industry will be put out of work and the profits made by health insurance carriers will disappear, contracting the economy when we should be looking to expand it.

I submit that there is a better way. We can provide universal coverage to every man, woman and child in the United States. It can be done using our existing free market structure. As an added bonus, Medicare and Medicaid will disappear under this plan.

By magic you ask? No. The answer is Universal Health Care Vouchers. How do they work? Why will they work? Where can I get one? All of these answers and many more will be provided in next week's column.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CREPT INTO THE
BACK SEAT OF YOUR CAR

Posted 6/5/09

And Ford stands alone. Yes, there is now only one truly American automaker: a private company, profit driven that is not a state run operation. “Buy American” now really means buy Ford.

Pushing GM into a government crafted bankruptcy plan has finally accomplished what the cold war could not, the socializing of America's private industry. What was good for GM used to be good for the United States. That is no longer true.

President Obama stated that he was confident that the government's action “will mark the end of an old G.M. and the beginning of a new G.M.” His statement is true and it should scare the bejusus out of anyone that believes in a free market system.

D.C. not Detroit will now be in charge of strategic thinking for both G.M. and Chrysler. You may ask yourself if the politicians can do any worse. After all G.M. and Chrysler went broke on their own. Ask yourself that question again, keeping in mind that now they are playing with our tax dollars, $50 billion to G.M. alone, with more undoubtedly to come.

To be fair, President Obama stated emphatically on Monday that he has no interest in “running G.M.” The statement surprised me. I did not realize that the administration had employed a comedy writer to punch up Obama's speeches. There is simply no truth to the statement. The government now owns 60% of G.M. The Obama administration will be replacing G.M.'s board and the administration already fired Rick Wagoner, the former chief executive of G.M., and replaced him with Fritz Henderson.

In addition to all of that “not running the company,” the government has been very clear that it expects G.M. to produce small, “green” cars. Given the lack of a market for such a vehicle in the United States, doesn't that certainly sound like a sound business model to be followed by a private, profit driven company? Of course not! But with Uncle Sugar behind the wheel, profit is not the object, just government interference into our lives.

Even if President Obama truly did not want to run G.M. and Chrysler, the government's action has made it politically impossible not to do just that. Chrysler and G.M. are now two fat government pigs and every slack jawed politician on Capitol Hill is going to come running for his or her piece of pork. Plant closings, even individual dealership closings, will be subject to political debate because every decision will impact a congressional district in some part of the company. In fact the grumbling is already under way. Several Chrysler dealers are alleging that the fact that the dealerships were owned by Republicans led to their being closed while other, less profitable dealerships, remain opened.

The government will not be able to extract itself from this mess any time soon, if ever. Not because it may not eventually be able to find a buyer, assuming there is something left of value, but because the government will never give this business up. It is another tool of control. Government is not in the business of shrinking. It is in the business of creeping forward and growing ever larger. It has now crept into your backseat. The only possible way to rid ourselves of this problem is to simply refuse the government's product. Buy American, buy Ford.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democrat Central Committee.
Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 2009: WHO WILL SURVIVE?

Posted 5/28/09

As I write this column late Monday evening, contemplating my weekend of fun, food and drink, and my wicked sunburn, I once again want to give thanks to all of those that came before us and made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in this great nation.

I am also contemplating the exciting summer that lies ahead. Every year Hollywood rolls out its summer blockbusters. This year is no different. A new Star Trek movie has already appeared along with a new Tom Hanks flick, Angels and Demons.

But the real excitement this summer, that will be sure to have every political junkie in the country glued to the internet and listening to the talking heads on television and radio, is the Republican Party Reality Series: “The Republican Party 2009– Who Will Survive?”

It is being carried by every television network, radio station, internet site and newspaper in the country. Starring the horsemen of the Republican Apocalypse: Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and General Colin Powell, it may not be nominated for any awards but is sure to be full of violence and mayhem.

Rush Limbaugh was the early star of the series with his calls for a ritual cleansing of the Republican Party to purge it of those that he did not deem to be Republican enough. Because special effects are not budgeted for this series, we were all left to conjure up images of goose stepping little Republicans marching lock step and saluting with a “DITTO RUSH!” rather than a “HEIL HITLER!”

Much to the chagrin of Limbaugh and the dittoheads, a vocal splinter group quickly emerged. This group is arguing that the Republican Party did not lose its way by failing to adhere to a rigid set of ideals handed down from on high by Limbaugh and his ilk. This group feels that the Republicans have failed because of the rigidity and lack of intellectual honesty contained in that set of ideals. This group wishes to broaden the scope of the Republican Party and is looking to a leader like General Colin Powell to do so.

Limbaugh quickly began hurling verbal brickbats at Powell. He questioned Powell's Republican credentials, and suggested that he should leave, or had already left, the Republican Party. Then out of an act of petulance, and to add a little drama to the series, he announced that he was resigning as the titular head of the Republican Party.

Dick Cheney, sensing that Limbaugh did not have the gravitas to bounce Powell from the Republican tent, entered the fray. To those paying close attention, you will notice that Cheney resembles the Penguin from the old “Batman” series more and more, in both look and demeanor. The Penguin or an aging Richard Dreyfus, either way it is hard to take him seriously. He is the emerging star on the series, appearing on every political show that will have him, arguing the validity of the failed policies of the Bush administration and telling everyone that will listen that he thought Powell “had already left the party.”

For his part, Powell has thus far played a limited role. He has responded to both Cheney and Limbaugh that he is a Republican and that he will not be leaving the Republican Party. He has also called for an “after action review” by Republicans to figure out where they went wrong in 2008. Like any good reality series, there has to be the character around which all of the tension swells. Powell is that character.

Then there is Newt Gingrich. Newt has stated that Republicans cannot adopt a small tent view and that a national party requires “internal tension.” Yes, he is riding the fence. He is Brutus, knife in hand. Newt just has not yet decided who it will be more beneficial for him to stab in the back.

It is a great bit of summer entertainment. If we are lucky it will be renewed for the fall season and even more characters will appear in political career ending episodes.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Contact him at russp842@yahoo.com)

PELOSI SHOULD STEP DOWN AS HOUSE SPEAKER

Posted 5/21/09

Pelosi Gate? That may be a little strong; however, our Speaker of the House has, at the very least, created a situation which distracts from the administration's agenda and provides opportunities for the Republicans where none should exist.

Pelosi created the present situation when she first denied being briefed on the use of water boarding in September of 2002. She later added to that statement and said she was told of the use of water boarding in 2003 by a member of her staff. She then pitched the CIA under the bus and said that it lied to her in 2002. She did all of this while acting like a cranky, petulant school girl caught in a lie.

But I believe that every dark cloud does have a silver lining. The Democratic Party must use this issue to cleanse the party of this festering sore. The Republicans would like nothing more than to have Pelosi hanging like an albatross around our necks in 2010. Pelosi hurts us in places like Missouri's 6th District. Here is my bold prediction: Short of self-inflicted political suicide, Sam Graves will hold his seat in the 6th as long as Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

In 2008, Graves effectively tied his last opponent, Kay Barnes, to Pelosi with a series of very negative ads. Graves won that election going away. There is no reason to believe that Pelosi will be viewed any more favorably in 2010, especially now.

If Pelosi were simply viewed by the general public as liberal she might be tolerable. Unfortunately, with every utterance, she solidifies the opinion of most that she is a self-important, self-interested, Marxist nut. She does not know the meaning of the word compromise and has used her position to unnecessarily punish those she views as political opponents, or potential challengers to her authority within the Democratic Party. Democratic Representative Jane Harman is a prime example of being Pelosied.

Harman and Pelosi became enemies when Harman dared disagree with Pelosi on intelligence matters. When the Democrats took over the House in 2006, Harman was in line to chair the Intelligence Committee. Pelosi did not even allow her a seat on that committee.

Pelosi is now twisting in the wind on a rope of her own making. What did she know and when did she know it? The Democratic Party does not have time to be distracted by her answer to those questions. As Democrats, we are on the cusp of greatness. The Republican Party cannot derail us. Leaders like Pelosi, however, can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

With Pelosi in the picture we are branded by many to be a bunch of super liberal hippies. There is a limited block of voters that fit that profile. With Pelosi gone, the Democratic Party will appear to be what it truly is, a center left political party. Pelosi should be given the opportunity to step down as Speaker of the House. If she refuses, she should be removed. The Democratic Party and the nation will be better for it.

(The Landmark is made better by The Convenient Truth column. Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

AUDITOR BUSY TRACKING STATE'S STIMULUS MONEY

Special column by Susan Montee, Missouri State Auditor

Posted 5/15/09

Hundreds of millions of dollars of stimulus money are flowing into Missouri. For the most part, it is sitting, unspent, in state accounts. You can be sure that will change soon, and that it will flow hard and fast. Missouri taxpayers deserve to know, in detail, what is happening with their hundreds of millions.

The hope is that all of that money will, as they say, stimulate the economy. We want the money to support projects and programs that generate jobs, creating a multiplier effect that will get our state and national economies moving in the right direction.

How do we know if the money is being spent wisely? Who has the data that will allow us to make informed decisions as we move forward?

That's where we in the Missouri State Auditor's office enter the picture. The Auditor's office is Missouri's financial watchdog. Our entire mission is to pay attention to how taxpayer money is being spent and to let you know what we find, whether the news is good or bad.

Being Missouri's financial watchdog includes keeping an eye on federal dollars that flow into Missouri--it is, after all, our money. From the day the first dollar of federal stimulus money hit a State of Missouri bank account, we've tracked it coming in and we've tracked it going out.

It's not enough for us, here in Jefferson City, to know how the money is spent. You need to know. Every Missouri citizen needs to know. Every Missourian needs to know what is happening just as soon as we know it here in your State Capitol.

That's why, before that first stimulus dollar hit a State of Missouri bank account, we established a Web page that tracks the movement of the money on a day-to-day basis. You can find that page at www.auditor.mo.gov. There, you can see where we are today and even a historical accounting of the money since it first started flowing.

As of this writing, you'll see that almost all of the money -- $353,430,063.02--is exactly where we deposited it, waiting to be allocated by the Missouri State Legislature.

What is the state going to do with all of that money? No one knows for sure, but those decisions are being made right now. Literally, they are being finalized as this article is rolling off of the presses.

Your elected representatives are deciding what will happen with the money, and now you know where to go to see what they are doing with it. Every day, you'll be able to see changes in the amounts we receive and the amounts we spend.

From there, it is up to you.

That's one of the great things about being state auditor. My job is to make sure you have the information you need to make informed decisions. Then you and your elected representatives have the opportunity to make good decisions, based on hard facts.

In this case, we are going to make sure you can know how your federal stimulus money is being spent. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.

(The Landmark thanks Susan Montee, state auditor, for pinch hitting for Russ Purvis this week. Russ returns in our next issue).

ARLEN SPECTER IS SIMPLY A WALKING EGO

Posted 5/8/09

A Republican friend once told me that he would vote for Beelzebub if there was an “R” in front of the name.
Why? Because, as my friend said: “Numbers matter.” We Democrats have now inherited one of the Republican devils in the form of Arlen Specter.

Make no mistake, like my Republican friend, I believe that numbers matter. However, with regard to Mr. Specter, I am firmly convinced that he has not switched political parties. He is, was and will always be a party of one. He is not a Republican, Democrat, or even an Independent. Specter is simply a narcissist of the first order.

Specter, speaking with perhaps a bit more candor than he intended, allowed the self love flag to fly high, when he stated that he was “unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.” Mr. Specter seems to have forgotten that it is the Pennsylvania electorate that has repeatedly returned him to office. He admits that his own party will not re-elect him. If he no longer represents them he should consider bowing out gracefully.

Specter certainly does not represent the Democratic Party. He has even said that if he disagrees with the Democrats he will filibuster. But hey, as the song goes, “if you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with.” The problem is that Specter does not appreciate the fact that the Democrats have allowed him to join the club. Just this past Sunday on Meet the Press, he demonstrated truly how soft in the head he is.

When questioned about keeping his Senate seniority, an important thing to all of the smug jackasses that run our country, Specter confirmed that he was going to keep his seniority and said “That's an entitlement. I've earned the seniority. I will be treated by the Democrats as if I'd been elected as a Democrat.” Specter just does not think that it matters that he was not elected as a Democrat.

Specter really wants to have his cake and eat it too. He went on at length on Meet the Press about being independent and willing to cross party lines. If he truly had any core beliefs then he would have left the Republicans and declared himself an Independent.

Specter is simply a walking ego. Not only does he feel that he is entitled to keep his Senate seniority, he feels that he is entitled to keep his seat. To that end he will move heaven and earth, switch parties, sell his soul, take a wide stance in an airport toilet, you name it he will do it.

As Democrats, we should not look a gift whore I mean horse, in the mouth. Use Specter for his vote but do not do him any favors. In fact, Specter should face a Democrat in the Pennsylvania primary in 2010. With the Republicans undoubtedly running a very conservative candidate, a moderate Democrat, a real honest to God, I did not change parties to get here, Democrat, can take the seat. Specter will then have time to hang out with the person he loves the most, himself.

(Chairman of Platte County Democrats, Russ Purvis can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

THE ENTIRE STIMULUS BILL WILL ALWAYS BE A DEBACLE

Posted 5/1/09

The Missouri legislature has accomplished next to nothing during the nearly four months that it has been in session. However, an issue is now winding its way through the legislative process that may actually lead to something good.

The Republicans have proposed using $1 billion of the federal stimulus funds that Missouri is slated to receive, to lower the Missouri income tax from 6.0% to 5.5% for two years. I believe that this is a great idea. After all, the federal government has demonstrated, on an almost hourly basis, over the course of the last four months, and for generations prior to that, that it does not have clue when it comes to stimulating the economy.

It is time to give all of us taxpayers back a portion of our money and give us a chance to put it to work. Never forget that it is our money. The federal stimulus package is simply a shell game, stealing from each and every one of us, bundling up the stolen funds and, like some low rent Robin Hood, sending the money hither and yon.

If the Missouri legislature actually passes the plan, we will all get at least a small portion of our money back. According to an article in the Kansas City Star, the tax cut will result in a savings of roughly $155 per year to a person with a taxable income of $40,000.

Inexplicably, Senator McCaskill opposes the tax cut. In a press conference held last Saturday and covered by the Springfield News Leader, McCaskill said that Washington knows best. McCaskill stated that she does not think that tax cut will “create the same number of jobs in Missouri as the program we passed in Washington.” She went on to say: “I know this: Nobody in Congress, nobody, thought that we were going to do 40 percent of the bill in tax cuts and 60 percent of the bill in job creation, that the states were then going to take the job creation money and say, 'Well, we're going to decide that we know better and we're going to do 100 percent in tax cuts.”

I will agree with McCaskill on a small part of one of her points: Nobody in Washington thought. The entire stimulus bill is, was and will always be a debacle. Very little stimulus is even contained in the bill. True to their nature, the politicians simply piled on all manner of pork and expected the general public to be happy that they had taken action of some sort.

During the press conference, McCaskill also accused Missouri Republicans of pandering, playing from the cheap seats and pulling a political stunt to garner national attention. Those accusations actually apply more accurately to what the federal government, under both Bush and Obama, has done in response to our current economic crisis.

We kick around the term bipartisanship all of the time. Well, as Democrats, it is time we act in a bipartisan manner and pass the tax cut. If you don't want your money you can always donate it back to your federal government to waste.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

HEAD LOCAL DEMOCRAT FAVORS MAKING MARIJUANA LEGAL

Posted 4/24/09

The world is going to hell in a hand basket. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that we all need something to mellow us out after all of the job losses, watching the stock market tank and being forced to bear witness to our elected officials selling out and mortgaging our futures. Alcohol is an option; however, drinking leads to hangovers, weight gain, liver problems and the possibility of a bad outcome in a bar fight.

Pot, on the other hand, possesses none of previously mentioned, negative attributes. Seriously, ask yourself this question: Have you ever seen anyone that was baked start a bar fight? If the Obama administration really wants to help the American public, legalizing marijuana should be a top priority.

Politicians as diverse as Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Barney Frank agree. Last year the two teamed up to propose legislation that would have decreased federal penalties for possession of marijuana and provided greater access to those wishing to use the drug for medical reasons. Some cities are even considering becoming distributors of medical marijuana.

Marijuana is not lethal. If it were, Willie Nelson would have been dead years ago. In fact, unlike alcohol, humans cannot overdose on pot. Marijuana has been shown to help individuals suffering from glaucoma and has been used to successfully provide relief from the nausea, lack of appetite and the crippling pain suffered by cancer patients.

Studies have also shown that it is less addictive than alcohol or tobacco. The argument that it is a gateway to other drugs is simply a sham. If such a thing as a “gateway drug” exists, it is alcohol. But alcohol remains legal and more readily available to people of all ages, and in greater quantities, than pot. Because alcohol is socially accepted, it also contains less stigma and adults are more likely to allow younger people to experiment with it.

The current laws governing marijuana are costing the country money. Marijuana could be helping reduce the nation's budget deficit and even helping to finance one or more of the government's pet programs such as healthcare or fighter planes. Legalizing marijuana and taxing it will not only save money by decreasing the stress and cost to the criminal justice system, it will also provide a large additional source of tax revenue.

In 2007, more than 750,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession. The cost in money and time to deal with these individuals in the criminal justice system could have been more effectively used to provide services to the less fortunate. In fact, legalizing marijuana will also lead to less gang violence in this country and less violence along our border with Mexico.

If marijuana is legalized, there will be no demand for the product on the black market due to the fact that the free market will provide a better product at a more competitive price. Gangs and border wars will decrease, at least as they relate to turf wars over marijuana. Legalizing cocaine and other drugs will only help to decrease the problem more.

Missouri--Platte County in particular--should take the lead in the fight to legalize marijuana. A county famous for its “ditch weed,” Platte is in a unique position to immediately profit from the marijuana's legalization. Fields that once produced bumper tobacco crops will produce an outstanding marijuana product. As Cuba is to cigars, Platte County could be to marijuana. Marijuana is America's largest illegal cash crop. It is time to legalize it, cash in, turn on and tune out.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Ask him what he’s been smoking via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

THE RELIGION OF GLOBAL
WARMING IS DANGEROUS

Posted 4/17/09

If Maureen O’Hara was correct in Miracle on 34th Street, and “faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to,” then the blind faith in global warming by those who should know better is not as crazy as it sounds. Without a shred of reliable, verifiable evidence, thousands of otherwise intelligent people are following the modern Pied Piper of Panic, the Chicken Little of Environmentalism, Al Gore, on faith.

Global warming is the latest new age religion and Al Gore is its High Priest. Like all religion it is based entirely on an article of faith with so many holes in its gospel that it resembles Swiss cheese. To attempt to argue otherwise demonstrates ignorance, or intentional misrepresentation, by the faithful. There is only one fact that cannot be disputed: there is no consensus among the scientific community that global warming is occurring.

I hesitate to call any religion dangerous, but in the case of the religion of global warming I will make an exception. The religion of global warming is dangerous because it threatens not only the activities of our daily life, but because it threatens the very existence of our nation as we know it. To appease the Gods of Greenhouse Gases, the global warming evangelists are willing to sacrifice this nation's entire infrastructure, sovereignty and probably a couple of virgins just to be on the safe side, all because Al Gore says it is necessary.

Untold billions are set to be spent without any explanation as to how or why. And it is only a matter of time before we enter treaties that will undoubtedly entangle our nation in international commitments over which we will have little control. And our leaders are attempting to do all of this in an effort to control something that has not been proven to exist.

The whole thing would be really funny, like an old SNL skit, if so many otherwise bright people did not buy into it hook, line and sinker. Keep in mind that it was a little more than 30 years ago, when it was not global warming, but the “new ice age” that was threatening the planet.

The religion of global warming relies heavily on “predicted outcomes” based on computer modeling. Like all models, the outcome received is largely dependent upon the information that is used in preparing the model. A researcher's bias and agenda will almost always produce a different outcome from that of a researcher with different views. Using a ginned up model, and relying on scare tactics like the lie that polar bears are facing extinction, they are, in fact, at near record levels, the true believers are attempting to convert the undecided and persecute the nonbelievers.

The soft headed among us, most notably our elected representatives, are acting like lemmings leaping from a cliff in support of this idiocy and willingly spending our hard earned tax dollars. President Obama has even appointed a global warming czar--so much for separation of church and state.

I am sure most of the global warming zealots have their hearts in the right place. It is their heads that I am worried about. With so many real problems facing the nation from the economy to health care, we do not have the time or extra money to place such a high priority on a popular fad.

So to all of those nonbelievers out there, speak up and let your voices be heard, and the next time you are faced with ridicule by a soft-headed, new age, Al Gore following, polar bear worshiping greenie, simply tell them to kiss your big, fat, SUV driving, carbon footprint.

(Kiss Russ’ carbon footprint via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

MISSOURI ON WRONG SIDE OF GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE

Posted 4/10/09

Missouri may very well have to resort to deficit spending due to a new and mounting danger to our north. God forbid, the gays can now marry in Iowa. Right wingers and evangelicals everywhere are on high alert. Rumor has it that they have all put away their porn collections and are racing to block Missouri's border with the new “rainbow” state.

Seriously, it is about damn time a Midwestern state decided to give equality a chance. While our redneck Republican leaders in Missouri (our own illustrious Senator Charlie Shields for one) have been busy refusing to grant a courtesy resolution honoring The Heartland's Men's Choir, a nationally known men's choir from Kansas City, that just happens to be made up of gay men, the Iowa Supreme Court has correctly ruled that same sex couples must be allowed to marry.

Last week, in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state statute banning same sex marriage. The Court found that “for purposes of Iowa's marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs (the gay and lesbian couples that brought the suit) are similarly situated (to heterosexual couples seeking to marry) in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation.” From there the court went on to find that the Iowa statute in question violated the equal protection clause of Iowa's constitution.

In a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion, the Court addressed each of the tired old chestnuts that the homophobic crowd is so fond of offering when opposing same sex marriage. With regard to the “traditional marriage” argument, the Court concluded that such an argument “can allow discrimination to become acceptable as tradition and helps to explain how discrimination can exist for such a long time. If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious racial and gender classifications would have failed.”

With regard to the best interest of children, the Court found that there is no legitimate argument to be made that same sex parents are not just as good at parenting as a man and a woman. The Court did agree that there were opinions to the contrary but found that “these opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”

With regard to procreation, the Court rightfully concluded that there is absolutely no evidence that allowing same sex marriage will decrease the number of children born or, conversely, that excluding same sex marriage will increase procreation.

With regard to religious opposition to marriage, the Court pointed out that marriage is, under the law, a civil contract. Therefore, the Court found “civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.”

Iowa got it right. Unfortunately, Missouri is squarely on the wrong side of this issue. With a statute and a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, we fly our narrow mindedness and wrongheadedness like a banner, for all to see. Everyone that truly does believe in the sanctity of a marriage between two individuals that are committed to each other, no matter what their sexual orientation, must work to change Missouri. It is the moral thing to do.

(Russ is chair of Platte County Democrats. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

SCHAFF DESERVES TONGUE-LASHING FOR SLAVERY COMMENT

Posted 4/3/09

Republican Rob Schaaf is a little known and unimportant state representative from St. Joseph. Why am I bringing him up and why should you care? In part because he plans to replace Senator Charlie Shields, who represents both Platte and Buchanan County, after he is term-limited out of office in 2010, but more importantly because Schaaf's recent statements indicate that he is an intellectually challenged bigot that dislikes poor children.

In a floor debate in the House of Representatives last week about Governor Nixon's proposal to increase Medicaid funding, which will allow more poor children to be covered under the State Children's Heal Insurance Program (SCHIP), Schaaf said that such government action will turn the taxpayers of Missouri into slaves.

After attempting to shield himself from criticism by wrapping himself in the mantle of Abraham Lincoln, who could reportedly be heard screaming from his grave, Schaaf accused Democrats that support state-sponsored health care for poor children of attempting to become slave masters. Schaaf said “there are families …. on the program that are willingly paying the premium… they (all of us evil Democrats) want them to stop paying it….they want them to stop paying it and expect all of the other taxpayers to pay it… and Mr. Speaker that is slavery.”

No! Paying for healthcare for the poor may be many things but it is not slavery, Representative Schaaf. Slavery was, in the United States of America, the ability of a white man to legally own a person of color. Being a slave was to be treated as less than human. Being a slave forced a person to watch as a wife, husband, child, mother, father, sister or brother was dragged away in chains to be sold, beaten or otherwise violated, while being powerless to stop it. Being a slave meant back-breaking labor for no pay and inadequate food and shelter. Being a slave meant knowing the taste of your own blood, or the feeling of scars across your back, after a fist to the face, or the snap of a bullwhip, by someone that viewed you as mere chattel. Being a slave meant never knowing freedom.

Above all, slavery was wrong. It left a long shadow over this nation from which we all still struggle to escape to this very day. Schaaf's disgraceful performance on the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives has lengthened that shadow. Schaaf's comments were not only wrong, they are unforgivable. Providing healthcare to poor children, on the other hand, is right and just.

Schaaf must be held accountable for his actions. The honorable thing would be for him to resign from office, beg forgiveness and apologize to Lincoln. But honor is a precious commodity, and not likely found in the makeup of a man of such distorted views. Civilized society has moved away from the bullwhip as a weapon to extract a pound of flesh; however, each and every one of us should give Schaaf a tongue lashing and then do everything in our power to guarantee that he is not elected as the next state senator from the 34th District.

(Email Russ, chairman of Platte County Democrats, at russp842@yahoo.com)

ACCESS TO THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS A GOOD THING

Posted 3/26/09

When it comes to sex, to steal a line from Cole Porter: “Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it.” Often times it has little to do with “falling in love” and more to do with falling in lust, or simply being drunk. In any event, contraception may not be considered until after the fact, especially by younger participants. That is why easy access to Plan B, also known as the “morning after pill,” is so important.

Plan B is a contraceptive. It reduces the likelihood of pregnancy if taken within three days of having sex by working to prevent the implementation of a fertilized egg. It has been available without a prescription to women over the age of 17 since 2006.

I know---abstinence! abstinence! Well, this column is discussing reality, and the reality is that sex happens, a lot. Many of the participants are young, and although they should remember to use a contraceptive prior to having sex, they should also be allowed the opportunity to use a contraceptive after the fact, without governmental intrusion, to avoid an unwanted, unplanned and unnecessary pregnancy.

Finally, after years of litigation, the FDA has been ordered to allow this to happen. On this past Monday, U.S. District Court Judge, Edward Korman, a Reagan appointee for those of you keeping score, found that the FDA had been compromised by the politics of the radical right's anti-choice agenda. Judge Korman's order will allow 17-year-old women to obtain Plan B without a prescription, and requires the FDA to address the efficacy of allowing younger women to also obtain the drug in the same fashion.

Why was litigation even necessary? Because the FDA became a political tool and abandoned its scientific role. The FDA got so far off of the reservation on this issue that Susan Wood, the top FDA official on women's health, resigned over the agency's handling of Plan B in August of 2005. In October of the same year, Dr. Frank Davidoff, a member of the FDA's Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee, also resigned. Dr. Davidoff's reason for resigning was that he felt that the FDA was playing politics and ignoring science.

In his ruling Judge Korman stated that “political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making are not the only evidence of a lack of good faith and reasoned decision-making. Indeed, the record is clear that the FDA's course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug product from prescription to non-prescription use.”

Early on in the litigation, the FDA even tried to hide agency discussions and correspondence about Plan B. It took a court order to pry the information loose, once again proving that governmental agency overreaching and political corruption are a major Republican problem.

The anti-choice crowd claims that Plan B is the same as an abortion. Following that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, masturbation amounts to the same thing. Honestly, it is time to have an honest conversation about this issue: Plan B does not constitute abortion; the Pope is wrong about condoms, they can and do prevent the spread of AIDS; and abstinence among teenagers is an ideal to pursue, but so is world peace. We have about as much of a chance of achieving one as the other. So, in the meantime, a little protection will not hurt a soul.

(Contact Russ Purvis, the local Democratic chairman, at russp842@yahoo.com)

TAXING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS WOULD BE COMPLETE LUNACY

Posted 3/20/09

Have you heard the new Obamanomics anthem? “If you drive a car, I'll tax the street; if you try to sit, I'll tax your seat; if you get too cold, I'll tax the heat; if you take a walk, I'll tax your feet. Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman.”

Taxman, the Beatles.

It is here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax with this administration. Of course it is all in the name of helping us. The most recent tax and spend outrage involves the so-called “overhaul” of the healthcare system. The New York Times reported last Sunday that Obama has changed his position as it relates taxing employee healthcare benefits, those healthcare benefits provided by employers to employees. When John McCain mentioned such a tax during the campaign, Obama called it “the largest middle class tax increase in history.” In one Obama campaign ad it was called “a multi-trillion dollar tax hike.” Now it is just the cost of socialization.

Obama's administration is trying to have it both ways on this issue. According to the New York Times, several Obama advisors stated that “while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.”That is simply a very clear message to Congress that Obama believes the tax increase should be in play. At the same time he will get to have political cover, arguing it was the Congress, not him, that proposed the increase. Sadly, there has been no change; it is business as usual in Washington, D.C.

Some Democrats, such as Representative Pete Stark of California are calling it “a dumb idea.” I disagree. The word dumb is not sufficient to describe this lunacy. It is a monumentally stupid idea. Government estimates indicate that 177 million people receive at least a portion of their healthcare benefits through employer based plans. This proposal puts the health insurance coverage of 177 million people at risk in an attempt to provide some, yet undefined, health insurance benefit to the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans.

The only foreseeable outcome of taxing healthcare benefits is that certain employers will drop the plans; some employees will not be able to afford the increased taxes, or simply will not want to pay them, and voluntarily drop their coverage and opt into whatever healthcare debacle government cobbles together; and, no employer is going to raise employee salaries to cover the cost of the tax. How can any logical person believe that such a tax increase is a good idea?

Logic simply does not apply here. In the ‘government can always do it better’ world, employer based healthcare is to be discouraged. Again from the New York Times: Obama advisors, including Jason Furman, deputy director of the White House Economic Council, believe that “not taxing benefits encourages inefficient, costly demands for health care and discriminates against those who do not have employer-provided coverage.”Democratic Senator Max Baucus has stated that not taxing employee healthcare benefits is “too regressive” and “It just skews the system.”

I had high hopes for this administration. So far, I have been left seriously disappointed. Obama and his advisors have to realize that they cannot afford to keep acting like coffee shop communists, discussing ideas for some utopian society, without having to give consideration to real world cause and effect. Unless and until that happens, to quote John, Paul, George and Ringo: “My advice for those who die, declare the pennies on your eyes, cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman. And you're working for no one but me.”

(Here’s hoping opinions aren’t next on the list to be taxed. Email our Democratic columnist at russp842@yahoo.com)

OBAMA MAKES RIGHT CALL ON STEM CELL RESEARCH

Posted 3/13/09

I just love revisiting Ronald Reagan with Republicans. In this week's edition of “What would Reagan do?” we explore stem cell research. As you all know by now, on Monday President Obama issued an executive order allowing federal funding to be used in the development of new lines of embryonic stem cells. President Bush had restricted federal funding for research into any new embryonic stem cell lines developed after August 9, 2001.

The “have the baby but don't expect me to help you out with it” crowd is predictably up in arms. But what would Reagan do? Well, if he were not dead, and if he listened to his wife, he would be applauding President Obama's decision.

In a statement made following Obama's executive order, former first lady Nancy Reagan said' “I'm very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them, and to do all they can to fulfill the promise that stem cell research offers. Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases, and soon. As I've said before, time is short, and life is precious.”

Obama made the right call. With stem cell research, some of the most horrific diseases and injuries faced by human beings the world over may be cured. Everything from cancer to spinal cord injuries will be impacted by this research.

Critics argue that the embryonic stem cells are not necessary for stem cell research to move forward because there has been some success with adult stem cell lines. What the critics ignore is the fact that adult stem cells have to be reprogrammed from their original purpose to do a different task. The early evidence indicates that such modification may produce unwanted and unpredictable results. Embryonic stem cells are a blank slate and do not require reprogramming.

Critics also argue that embryos are people. They are not. Michael J. Sandel, put it best in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in July of 2004, entitled, Embryo Ethics- The Moral Logic of Stem Cell Research, when he stated that “the fact that every person began life as an embryo does not prove that embryos are persons. Consider an analogy: although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees are different kinds of things. So are human embryos and human beings.”

This anti-embryonic groups argument is even more out of touch when one considers that the group making this argument is, by and large, the same group that favors capital punishment and supports Missouri's Republican controlled legislature's refusal to provide health insurance coverage to an additional 20,000 Missouri children at no cost to the state. This “punish the children” attitude is truly astounding when considered with the uproar surrounding the embryonic stem cell issue.

With everything going wrong in the world, Obama's decision on embryonic stem cell research is one shining example of something going right. Hopefully we will all reap the rewards of this decision sooner rather than later.

(Reap the reward of reading Russ each week, only in your Landmark. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

REPUBLICANS WON'T BE OUT OF THE DITCH ANYTIME SOON

Posted 3/6/09

The stock market is still falling. Job losses are still mounting. And, as if that were not enough, we were just forced to suffer through the largest snowfall of the season, on a weekend no less. We all need a reason to smile. How about the fact that Republican Party is in an ideological ditch? A couple of tow trucks are attached to each end of it, one driven by the Republicans’ “defacto leader,” prescription drug abuser extraordinaire Rush Limbaugh, the other by Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele, a man with so little influence or appeal most of you would not have known the name if I had not mentioned it here.

Meanwhile, loudmouth radio host Sean Hannity sits inside the wreck talking about being a “great American” while crazy Annie Coulter is in the back seat with her legs in the air playing slap and tickle with any Republican desperate enough to seek some solace there. Elected Republicans can be found standing on either side of the ditch like slack jawed morons, believing that saying they “oppose Obama” somehow qualifies as a new and original ideology.

All of this came to a head for the Republicans over this past weekend. Limbaugh was the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) annual meeting, where he gave a stem winding speech essentially reiterating the overripe, reactionary rhetoric that he serves up on his radio show. His main point being that he, and all Republicans, must want President Obama to fail. Never mind the fact that if the Obama administration fails, the country may well fail. No new ideas were offered, no solutions, just a failure first platform.

Steele also spoke at the CPAC meeting but without the Limbaugh fanfare. His speech called for Republicans to apologize for past mistakes, no real detail as to the nature of the mistakes, maybe a war here and there and the destruction of the economy, who knows. After apologizing, he believes that Americans will give the GOP another chance. Not exactly an upbeat speech but maybe you had to be there.

Following Limbaugh's diatribe, Steele appeared on CNN and when questioned as to whether Limbaugh is the Republican Party's defacto leader stated, “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly.”

In typical fashion, Limbaugh attacked Steele during his radio program on Monday. Also, in the fashion typical of Republicans that get crossways with Limbaugh, Steele quickly backed off of his statements. So on the one hand Limbaugh preaches a failure first platform and on the other Steele demonstrates a spineless willingness to retreat in the face of adversity. With this kind of leadership the Republicans will remain in the wilderness for decades.

The problem appears to be that Limbaugh, Steele nor any other Republican has the ability to be forward thinking. Limbaugh is a reactionary, rarely attempting to offer a solution and when he does it is a simplistic response to a complex problem. Other Republicans attempt to invoke the “What would Reagan do?” mantra. I am frankly surprised that they have not all replaced their WWJD bracelets with one that reads WWRD.

The problem for today's Republican Party is that it cannot invoke Reagan. It has long since abandoned that set of principles. Reagan would not be a member of the Republican Party as it exists today. He would have left when the evangelicals took over and it became a rite of passage to spend tax money like a drunken sailor.

So rejoice, my fellow Democrats. The Republicans are not going to get out of the ditch any time soon. I am sure they will keep trying so, like Limbaugh, just keep hoping that they fail.

(Rejoice with Russ, not Rush, via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

CONSPIRACTY THEORY: STEELMAN-GRAVES TEAMING UP?

Posted 2/27/09

Last week, Roy Blunt, the current congressman from Missouri's seventh district, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Kit Bond. The silence surrounding support for his candidacy by members of his own party was deafening. Criticism, however, was not hard to find.

Roy Blunt is “just another white guy in a suit.” Such high praise for the newly minted Republican candidate for the United States Senate comes not from me, but from a member of his own party, former Missouri Treasurer, Sarah Steelman. Although, I might add that he also sports a really bad haircut.

Steelman clarified her statement in an article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch last Saturday. It is Steelman's opinion that Blunt will be a weak candidate to take on the likely Democratic nominee Robin Carnahan because he is among the Republicans that have "led this country to the brink of disaster.”

Steelman is correct. Blunt is a Washington insider's insider. He was part of the Tom Delay cabal. His wife and one son are both lobbyists. And of course another son is Missouri's own e-mail sensitive former governor.

It appears that there will be a Blunt/Steelman primary. The split in the Missouri Republican Party has already become apparent. Steelman was not invited to speak at the Republican Party's Lincoln Days held last weekend in Kansas City. Keep in mind she is the former Missouri Treasurer and the most recent female Republican to hold a statewide office.

Besides the Democratic Party, who will benefit from this intra-party squabble? The other congressman that I still believe, although he has been silent on the subject, will run for Bond's seat: Sam Graves.

Like it or not, Graves is the best fit for the Republicans if they really want to hold Bond's seat. The Republicans cannot compete in the urban areas of Kansas City and St. Louis so they have to win outstate Missouri. Graves controls the largest rural district in the state and has a proven template for winning in those areas. So why is he not in the race? Maybe he is.

I am not generally a conspiracy theorist, but I believe one may be underway in the race to replace Bond. Could it be that Sarah Steelman is a not really serious about running for Bond's seat, but is in reality acting as an attractive hit woman for Graves? It makes sense. Jeff Roe is still acting as Sam Graves' campaign brain. He also acted in that capacity for Steelman in her run for Missouri Governor.

Steelman, who fell out of favor with her party when she decided to run against Kenny “I withhold evidence to get criminal convictions” Hulshof in the Republican primary for Missouri Governor in 2008, can stand out front and inflict a death by 1000 cuts on Blunt. If the plan works, he will become so weakened that he will appear vulnerable to the big money donors. Of course Steelman will hurt her own chances by appearing to simply be a naysayer with no original ideas. Graves then comes in on a white horse to rescue the Republicans.

What is in it for Steelman? She helps Graves take Bond's seat and in return, he helps her run for Missouri Governor in 2012.

At the end of the day Carnahan still becomes the next United States Senator from the State of Missouri. But the road to get her there should be very interesting.

(Russ Purvis is white but he’s not just another white guy in a suit. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

JFK WOULD NOT BELIEVE THIS LEVEL OF BUREAUCRACY

Posted 2/20/09

It is no secret to those of you that follow this column that I have opposed all of the alleged bailouts. I have been especially outraged and disgusted by the $787 billion dollar pork bill that was just rammed down our throats by a government more concerned with projecting an image of action than it is with the consequences of nationalizing our once free market system.

My criticism has been met with many vocal objections. I have received telephone calls and e-mails from individuals that have questioned my right to criticize the new administration, and others that have actually told me that based on my criticism of Pelosi, and the Obama administration, I cannot possibly be a Democrat. To all of those critics I simply say, I disagree.

I belong to the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, not the party of those that believe the federal government should force McDonalds to provide increased benefits to anyone that happens to work there while a college student, and provide tax rebates to individuals that do not even owe taxes to begin with. John F. Kennedy, in a speech from 1960, defined for me what it is to be a Democrat when he said: “I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.”

Our elected Democrat representatives either forgot, or simply do not believe in the principles set forth by JFK. In one bill, given less consideration than the naming of a local airport, our government has expanded federal bureaucracy to a level Kennedy would not have believed possible. Individual effort would have resolved the current economic crisis. There would have been pain, but that pain would have been nothing compared to the pain and hardship we will all collectively be forced to endure as a result of the pork bill that was just passed. Our future has been mortgaged for the sake of the pet projects of disconnected politicians.

As a fellow Democrat you too should be outraged. We are Democrats not socialists. Our President ran around the country like Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling, knowing full well that type of rhetoric only served to make matters worse for the economy. Democratic members of the House and Senate, enamored with their own inflated sense of self importance, decided that we, the general public, are just too stupid to get deal with this crisis, and made a power grab of historic proportions.

Throughout this race the hog trough, the mantra was “we are the government and we are here to help.” If you can read this article, you are too old to believe that. If you do believe it, let me be the first to congratulate you on your optimism - comrade.

(Email The Landmark’s Democratic columnist at russp842@yahoo.com)

DON'T LET LITTLE MINDS MORTGAGE YOUR FUTURE

Posted 2/13/09

“Just a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down in a most delightful way.” The lyrics of that Mary Poppins song have been running through my head as I have followed the bailout fever that has taken over Washington, D.C. Both parties are attempting to load up the plan with something for everyone just to make it palatable. The problem is that the plan is now long on sugar with very little medicine for the economy.

Every American agrees that the economy is hurting. The agreement ends there. The Democratic Party leadership argues that you must buy into its plan lock, stock and pork barrel or you are not a Democrat. The Republicans argue that you must oppose the entire plan or you are not a Republican. Both arguments are wrongheaded and do nothing to address the economy.

Like all of you, I consider myself an American first. Party affiliation ranks somewhere after that. I am offended at the action taken by both parties in allegedly attempting to address the current economic crisis. Arguments that the sky will fall, and we will all face a financial Armageddon if Uncle Sugar does not get something done by an arbitrary, self-selected, February deadline ring hollow with me.

There is an old saying among carpenters: “Measure twice, cut once.” The problem with the bailout fever is that no one has even bothered to measure once. Congress has decided to build a rescue ship without a plan, using tired shopworn ideas of questionable merit. The plan is simply a hodgepodge of special interests.

Before we allow our market system to become nationalized, we must demand that there be some meaningful discussion regarding the state of the economy, what is needed to stimulate it immediately and what needs to be done in the long term. All of those issues should be coordinated with the use of the remaining $350 billion in TARP funds that have yet to be allocated.

A few things are certain: The economy, whether the government intervenes tomorrow or next month, or not at all, is going to get worse before it gets better; nothing the federal government might do is going to decrease job losses in the short term; and, finally, the federal government has never efficiently managed any quasi-business enterprise, even when it has held a monopoly.

If the current plan is rushed through it will be deeply flawed and has a better than even chance of doing more harm than good. And you can bet that every politician that supports the plan will, two months or two years from now, whenever waste, abuse and failure are evident, start talking about “hindsight.” They will all say that they would have done things so differently if only there had been time.

There is time. In fact we cannot afford for our elected representatives to respond to this crisis with any thing less than measured reflection and that takes time. Unfortunately, our representatives in the House and Senate are acting consistent with past performance, agreeing to impetuous spending with little regard for cause and effect. Such foolish consistency is truly, to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson “the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Do not allow these little minds to mortgage your future. Contact every elected official from Missouri and express your outrage before time does run out.

(Landmark columnists, like our own Russ Purvis, would never mortgage your future. Contact Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

THESE ACTS OF PARTISANSHIP MUST STOP

Posted 2/6/09

It has been a very interesting week on the political front. Not much of anything of substance was accomplished during the last seven days but we now have a very clear understanding of the new political landscape. For all of the ink spilled and words spoken to the contrary, the political reality on the ground in Missouri and in Washington, D.C. is that extreme partisanship still rules the day.

A perfect example of the fact that Republicans have no desire to work together with Democrats in finding solutions to the serious problems we face as a nation is Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder's response to Governor Nixon's State of the State address. Nixon met the financial realities facing the Missouri head on. He went so far as to propose eliminating 1,329 state jobs. Rather than applaud the effort and extend a hand a cross the aisle, Kinder carped about the fact that Nixon proposed using expected federal stimulus money to balance the budget. And of course Kinder proposed no solutions.

In Washington D.C., the Democrats in the House of Representatives passed the stimulus package without a single Republican vote.The Republicans are attempting to spin this action as a victory for the American people and principles of sound fiscal policy.

In reality it is an action designed to do nothing more than shore up the hardcore base of the party. House Republicans will now be able to nit pick every failure associated with the stimulus and say that they would have voted for the parts that turn out to be successful, if only the parts that turn out to be failures had not been attached.

The United States Senate will now take up the stimulus issue. Based on the posturing it appears that the vote will fall mostly along party lines. So it is the same old song. The politicians posture, as the right wing talking heads chirp on about how great it is that the Republicans are returning to the principles of Reagan, while the common man, woman and child are left to wonder who really cares about fixing this mess.

The Democrats have also shown themselves not to be above a little partisan brinksmanship this past week. Our own Claire McCaskill stoked the age old class warfare furnace a few days ago when she proposed capping the wages of executives that work for companies receiving bailout funds. Sure it is a great sound bite and it appeals to most of us on some level. Unfortunately, it makes absolutely no sense and simply widens the divide between Republicans and Democrats.

In theory the companies receiving bailout funds are essential to our economic recovery and cannot be allowed to fail. If that premise is true, then the companies need to be led by the best people. The best people will not work under a salary cap when they can go to other private companies and make ten or twenty times as much money.

One act of Democratic partisanship that must quickly be abandoned is backing Tom Daschle for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle's failure to report and pay taxes on over $120,000 in taxable income is simply not excusable. To make matters worse, he failed to initially disclose the issue to President Obama. The Democrats need to cut this guy loose and demonstrate that real change is coming to Washington, D.C.

(Russ Purvis is The Landmark’s official Democratic correspondent. Reach him via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

TAX INCREASES WOULD BE THE WRONG WAY TO GO

Posted 1/29/09

Nancy Pelosi is not my favorite Democrat. In fact, I am not sure she is a Democrat as those of us in Missouri define the term. Socialist, communist, power hungry nut case are descriptions that come to mind when describing Pelosi. One thing I am sure of is that she knows spit about economics.

President Obama has been in office for little more than a week and Pelosi has already expressed her public support for two actions, both of which will make the economy worse, and one of which will all but turn the United States economic system into a glorified version of Venezuela.

First, Pelosi supports a tax increase in the middle of a recession. She wants to see the Bush tax cuts rolled back. The Obama team, wisely, has decided that is a very bad idea. Pelosi, actually stated last Sunday on Fox News, I think they have her on for comic relief, that “Nothing contributed more to the budget deficit than the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America." This statement is simply not true. Nothing has contributed more to the deficit than wasteful government spending, a great deal of which has occurred on her watch.

Pelosi has backed off this stance a bit. She now claims that she will not hold up any stimulus package over this issue but does not want the tax cuts renewed when they expire in 2011.

The second action which Pelosi supports is the nationalization of at least a part of the banking system. In a recent interview on ABC discussing the possibility of bank nationalization she said “if we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization…

Would we have ever thought we would see the day when we'd be using that terminology? 'Nationalization of the banks?' ”

No one in his or her right mind believes we have yet seen the day when we should discuss nationalizing the banking system. President Obama's team is certainly not discussing it. Nationalizing the banking system really means that you have nationalized the economy. Do you really want to have to go to Uncle Sam for a loan to buy a car, to finance a home or to start a business? Consider how complicated the tax code is. If the government can make paying your money to it that difficult, how hard to you think it will be to get the government to allow you to get some of it back, especially in the form of a loan?

Access to capital is key to a free market. In a market economy, banks lend capital to businesses with the expectation that the businesses will repay the loans with interest, profit will be realized by the shareholders, who will be free to reinvest in the bank or some other business endeavor and the entire economy grows. If the government controls even a part of the banking system, it will undoubted introduce its own interests, many of which will compete the need to realize a profit. Less profit will mean less economic growth.

If profit is no longer the key component of the banking system, it becomes a riskier investment and capital will move to other markets. The government will be forced to invest more heavily and, eventually will become the bank.

Free markets work. Government control does not. President Obama has said that he will consider any advice on how to handle the current economic crisis. My advice is ignore Pelosi. There are things that can do more harm to the economy than good and tax increases and nationalizing the banking system are two such actions.

(Russ Purvis provides the Democratic perspective on this page. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

TRUE LEADERSHIP FROM OBAMA COULD CHANGE THE WORLD

Posted 1/22/09

The sun rises, the sun falls and the weather is still cold enough to recognize that winter has not given way to spring. But the world has changed. Even before Jan. 20, you could sense it. Now you can feel it in your bones. The free world now has a true leader.

Like most presidents before him, President Obama has been sworn into office carrying with him the hopes and dreams of the citizens of the United States of America, and of the millions of individuals around the world that look to this country as a beacon of hope and freedom. No matter the race, gender, age, nationality or political affiliation, there are three age old inalienable rights all people hope to enjoy - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As citizens of the United States, we have been lucky enough to have founded our nation on these principles but must work to make sure we do not forfeit them for any reason. To other people in the world life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or any combination of the three, remains an ideal to be reached.

Unlike most presidents before him, President Obama takes the reigns of power at a true crossroads in our nation's history, a time when many feel that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are in jeopardy in this country and simply not attainable by much of the rest of the planet. On inauguration day President Obama stood in the present. The past was clearly set forth, marked by grave stones of failure and lights of success. The future stood off in the distance, a perfect blend of hope and confidence, as yet unmarked by the bumps and bruises of the passing of time. President Obama stood in the present and charted a path for our nation's future, based on the hard lessons of our nation's past, and asked us to follow him in the ongoing pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and others all around the world.

To those of us that have supported President Obama since he was candidate Obama, he is perfectly matched for the challenges that lie ahead. He is not God. He is not a king. He is a unique. He is a true leader of people. True leadership can change the world.

Like any true leader President Obama is humble enough to recognize that the course he has charted will not be easy. In his inaugural address President Obama acknowledged the difficult nature of what lies ahead when he said “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given.It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom”.

Whether you profess to be liberal, conservative or something else, Obama's success or failure will be your success or failure. As a people we can overcome any obstacle. If you are a Democrat, stand firmly behind your new president. As a Republican, or a member of some other minority party, if you cannot find a way to support the efforts of the new administration to renew the success and spirit of this great nation, please have the courtesy to stand aside and let those who do get on with the business at hand. You see the world has changed, you can be a part of it, or you can be left behind.

(Our Russ Purvis is The Landmark’s true community organizer. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

DEMS NEED TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES, ENGAGE ENEMY

Posted 1/16/09

The theme of Governor Jay Nixon's inaugural address was “A New Day for Missouri.” That theme certainly fits the current political climate in the state. One old warhorse has finally reached the pinnacle of his career, Governor of the State of Missouri. Another old warhorse, Senator Kit Bond, has decided to put himself out to pasture by announcing that he will not run again for the United States Senate. So it is a new day, a scary new day.

Both parties are busy issuing enough sound bites about a new tone of bipartisanship and peace, love and understanding to make your average freaked out hippy puke and your average evangelical throw away his or her Bible in disgust. But all of the platitudes have about as much value as a bucket of warm spit.

The national economy is in chaos and Missouri's economy is not in much better shape. It is estimated that the State of Missouri will have to find a way to close a $342 million budget deficit in 2009 and a $1 billion budget deficit in 2010. Governor Nixon needs a new tone of bipartisanship to accomplish that task. Unfortunately, the political calculus simply will not allow it.

Right now, every elected Republican in this state, from dog catcher to lieutenant governor, believes that he or she is the next Kit Bond. There is a power vacuum in the Missouri Republican Party. The only rule for success in the party is that you absolutely cannot appear to sympathize or, God forbid, agree with a Democrat.

If one of these would-be Bond replacements cooperates with Governor Nixon, how will that play in the race for U.S. Senate? If you are a Republican state representative or a Republican state senator and work across the aisle, those elected to national office, such as Sam Graves and Roy Blunt, will be able to question whether you are truly a Republican, or simply an opportunist.

Peter Kinder should step up and at least act the part of a statesman and put political differences aside for the good of the people. Do not expect that to happen. Kinder is also focused on the big bicycle race that is the 2010 race for United States Senate. He is not about to help Governor Nixon save the state and risk having the tires on his bike flattened before the 2010 starting gun is fired. Expect Kinder to talk about how much he is attempting to work with Governor Nixon while he stabs him in the back at every opportunity.

The Republicans still control both the houses of the state legislature. They will use this session to do everything in their power embarrass Governor Nixon. It may not be good for the people of Missouri, but this is not about the people, it is about the accumulation and use of power by the Republicans.

Democrats who brag about their ability to cross the aisle and work with the Republicans better wake up. Unless they are prepared to literally walk across the aisle and beat the opposition into submission with a brick bat, crossing the aisle will only demonstrate an ability to be a useful idiot.

It is a new day for the State of Missouri and the Democratic Party. It is a day that requires all good Democrats to take off the gloves and engage the enemy before the enemy wrecks Missouri in the name of Republican ideology. It is no time to be a pacifist. Turning the other cheek only provides your opponent a new target.

(Turn the page to Russ Purvis every week because he won’t turn the other cheek. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

SENATE HAS BECOME A COMEDY WRITER'S DREAM

Posted 1/9/09

2009 has barely begun and the United States Senate has already distinguished itself as a comedy writer’s dream come true. It is too bad that the issues the senate has to deal with are so deadly serious.

On the Republican side of the aisle, the gift for irony and great comedy timing presented itself for public ridicule this past weekend, when the Republican leadership in the senate spoke out against President-elect Obama's proposed tax cuts. How funny! This is the group that has argued that nothing short of massive tax cuts can save the economy.

In the “Let them eat cake” world of Republican politics, a tax cut that might benefit the poor is simply wrong. The funny thing is that if the tax cut was aimed at the Republicans' target audience, the rich and otherwise bailout worthy, it would be just fine. Apparently, only rich Republicans know how to properly spend the nation out of a recession. Poor people, Democrat and Republican alike, are simply too stupid to be trusted.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is always good for a few chuckles. The world is quite literally falling down around us but Harry has time to do a stand up routine about why it would be wrong to seat Roland Burris, President-elect Barack Obama's duly appointed successor in the United States Senate.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich appointed Burris to fill the seat vacated by Obama. As everyone that does not live under a rock knows, Blago, prior to appointing Burris, allegedly attempted to profit from his power to appoint Obama's replacement. Although not yet indicted, calls have been made for Blago's resignation and his power to make the appointment has been questioned. The problem is that legally Blagojevich does have the power to appoint.

But Reid, a self professed “old trial lawyer,” the operative word being “old,” doesn't get it. I am guessing that he went into politics because he was not a very good trial lawyer. Because every good trial lawyer knows that your case needs a decent theme. The theme the Democrats should be using is “Change.” Unfortunately, Reid seems to believe that the theme is “Harry Reid is powerful and must be obeyed.”

Senator Reid's argument against Burris is that he is tainted by Blagojevich. If the senate had a no-taint standard, the chamber would be empty, save for the newly-elected senator from Minnesota, Al Franken.

After a long recount, Al Franken outpaced his opponent, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, by 225 votes to win a seat in the senate. He did it because he is good enough, he is smart enough, and doggone it, people like him! Talk about comedic gold. It does not get any better than Senator Stuart Smalley being elected to the senate. Of course the Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the election has been stolen by Franken.

If Franken is that good of a criminal then he is certainly qualified to be a senator. The ironic thing is that the Republicans went nuts when Democrats accused the Shrub of stealing the 2000 election from Al Gore. Now that the shoe is on the other foot it is all about justice, democracy and the American way.

In this case, the American way involves Republican lawyers initiating frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to steal the seat from Franken. Keep in mind that these are the same Republicans that constantly yammer on about there being too many lawyers and lawsuits and that spend an inordinate amount of time pushing for tort deform and the creation of partisan judges.

Jon Stewart, Mad Magazine, and even the humorless Sean Hannity should be laugh-out-loud funny for the next several months thanks to the senate. The hilarious 100 may destroy the country, but at least we will all die laughing.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. He can be reached at Russp842@yahoo.com)

For columns from 2008