“ST. LOUIS -Missouri state Sen. Jeff Smith and Rep. Steve Brown today pleaded guilty to felony charges related to Smith’s 2004 campaign for the U.S. Congress.” READ THE ARTICLE

More than 250 of the state’s 523 school districts participated in the case. The suit challenged both the adequacy and the fairness of how Missouri pays for public education.” READ MORE

By Jo Mannies and Dale Singer, Beacon staff

As Chairman of the House Budget Committee since 2006, Allen Icet presents a serious challenge to former ambassador Thomas Schweich. Icet takes with him the majority of the House representatives in Misssouri as support and has cited his committee leadership experience as preparation for the auditor position. Schweich brings his foreign policy experience and legal mind to the table, referring to his financial writings as experience for the most powerful budget position in the state of Missouri.

Now, facing Montee will be a challenge in itself, as few state campaigns are able to unseat incumbents. But, if either Republican candidate is capable of meeting this challenge, it would seem that Icet has the leg up. With specific financial legislative experience in the House Budget Committee, Icet knows more about the Missouri budget than anyone single individual, it can be argued. Schweich, on the other hand, has served his state from afar for most of his career, and seems to have more interest in the national political game than the local. And, with his big supporters being controversial Republican icons who have also had more sway abroad, one can begin to wonder how Schweich fits the state auditor position. It has already been rumored that Schweich would be attempting to seek the open U.S. Senate spot that will be vacated by Kit Bond, but was kindly asked to step aside and run for auditor by his Republican backers.

It seems that Icet has been modeled for the job, with experience, local support, and resources, while Schweich seems to merely be searching for another position of power to delve into, not even certain himself which position that might be.

“Senator McCaskill starts a series of town hall meetings on health care this week. She hopes to have several more throughout Missouri during the August Congressional break. But she hopes something does NOT happen at those meetings. .

Several members of Congress who’ve tried to hold town hall meetings on health care have found the meetings disrupted by disorderly crowds. Things were so raucous at last week’s St. Louis County meeting by Congressman Russ Carnahan that six people were arrested. McCaskill says one of her own staff members was called “a fat pig” in a meeting she set up just for opponents of the Obama health care plan. She hopes crowds at her town hall meetings show more courtesy than that.” Read More…

]]> http://reformer9.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/mccaskill-hopes-for-common-courtesy-in-town-hall-meetings/feed/ 0 reformer9 http://reformer9.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/cash-for-clunkers-gets-a-boost-again/ http://reformer9.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/cash-for-clunkers-gets-a-boost-again/#comments Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:20:48 +0000 reformer9 http://reformer9.wordpress.com/?p=564 ]]> As of Friday, July 31st, the “Cash for Clunkers” program gained hope, as the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill that would flood the nation with $3 billion more, adding to the previously spent $1 billion that was doled out in merely a week.

Therefore, if $1 billion was spent in roughly one week, is it fair to say that this recent expenditure, if passed, will last only three weeks??

Where is the government getting billions of dollars to spend on a program that highlights the need for an end to global warming?

Does anyone stop to think that the money the ordinary Joe may receive for his clunker will be simply given back to the government in higher taxes in the Obama years to come?

And, what types of people are actually benefiting from this program?

“The most recent example is a bill that recently passed the House of Representatives. It would create a so-called ‘cap-and-trade’ system to reduce CO2 emissions. Emitters would be required to obtain permits, which would be limited in number (the “cap”), from the federal government and could then buy and sell them on the market (the “trade”). The cap would gradually decrease, increasing the cost of energy over time.

A recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that the law would:

$ raise the average family’s annual energy bill $1,241 (over $100 per month);

$ raise electricity rates 90%, gasoline prices 74%, and residential natural gas prices 55%;

$ raise unemployment by nearly 2 million jobs in 2012, with additional job losses to follow;

$ raise the inflation-adjusted federal debt 26% by 2035–about $115,00 per family of four; and

$ reduce gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion per year, or $9.4 trillion through 2035.

The payoff? About 0.09 degree F reduction in global average temperature in the year 2050. (The real reduction might be only 1/10 as much.) At that rate, counting the costs only through 2035, we’d be paying $940 billion for every 1/100th of a degree reduction in temperature. Assuming—optimistically!—that costs after 2035 were slashed in half, we’d end up paying an additional $2.9 trillion, for a total of over $12 trillion, or $1.2 trillion for every 1/100th of a degree. That’s an awful lot to pay for so little return when growing numbers of qualified scientists reject the case for destructive manmade global warming anyway.”

-E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.

National Spokesman,

Cornwall Alliance for the

Stewardship of Creation

“State Rep. Allen Icet officially kicked off his campaign for state auditor Thursday night before about 200 supporters by taking aim at — President Barack Obama.

Icet, R-Wildwood, decried “the liberal policies of the Obama administration and what he’s trying to do to us” in an address that focused almost exclusively on national issues.” (Read More…)

-Saint Louis Beacon