The Source

Our Suggestions for Nixon's DED Head

So the time has come for Jay Nixon to appoint a new dimwit to head up the Dept. of Economic Development as the tenure of David Kerr, a huge embarrassing failure, draws to a much-needed close.

Might we offer a few suggestions?

• Bernie Madoff
• Helen Keller
• Occupy Wall St.
• Steve Spagnuolo
• Kim Kardashian
• The Unabomber
• Jay Nixon’s Son
• Tom from MySpace
• Tyler Palko
• Wesley Snipes

All distinguished choices, for sure… but who would be the best (or rather wouldn’t be the worst) choice?

One thing is for sure: any of them would be better than David Kerr.

Good luck, Governor! At least we all know you can’t do any worse.

- B.H.

Another Carnahan Wind Farm Scandal...

There seems to be one issue after another in regards to Tom Carnahan’s wind farms. Most recently his company, Wind Capital, has been fighting allegations that they are dodging taxes (or at least trying to) at their DeKalb County operation. Not long before that mess they became embroiled in an ongoing legal battle with the Osage Nation in Oklahoma over the mineral rights to the land their wind farms operate on.

Now, here in Missouri, a much more public conflict has come into play: a ballot proposal that would “transfer $360 million from Missouri’s electric ratepayers... to renewable energy suppliers...” is being written by Tom Carnahan’s sister, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.

Wind Capital, as one of the state’s largest green energy suppliers, would be in line for a ton of money under this proposal.

It’s what most political observers would call, at a minimum, a “conflict of interest”.

Naturally, the Carnahan family sees no problem whatsoever.

Now a firestorm of sorts is brewing, with State Rep. Jay Barnes leading the charge.

“No rational Missourian,” Barnes said, “believes Secretary Carnahan doesn’t have a conflict in writing ballot language for a measure that would secure hundreds of millions of dollars in guaranteed sales for a business owned by her brother.”

Although no apparent provision exists for transferring the ballot writing, Barnes believes the secretary could adopt language offered by a “neutral and credible third-party.”

Earlier calls for Robin Carnahan to step aside were dismissed outright by not just the Carnahan clan, but also the attorney general’s office. However, there’s a lot more at play here.

Most obvious of all, they’re throwing fuel on the already-growing fire that’s slowly surrounding Wind Capital, and they should plainly see that. (Maybe “fanning the flames” would be more apropos?)

With scandals already piling up, why throw another in the mix when it’s such an easy scandal to avoid? It’s as simple as Robin Carnahan saying “I recuse myself” and letting someone else write the two or three lines that for that proposal.

Is that really worth fighting tooth and nail for?

If there’s truly no benefit to Robin Carnahan drafting the ballot language then why is it so important that they protect her ability to draft the ballot language?

They can argue that Robin Carnahan has no real conflict of interest and the opposition can argue the point, but I can argue that anyone else would have less of a personal conflict than Robin Carnahan and no one can argue the point. And therein lies the problem.

The Columbia News-Tribune, coming out against Robin Carnahan’s involvement in drafting the language, pointed to exactly that issue in their biting editorial that concludes:

To eliminate such scrutiny and controversy, Secretary Carnahan’s wisest move is to place as much distance as possible between her office and writing the ballot language for the renewable energy proposal.

This should be a no-brainer. But the Carnahans are about power. Political power, wind power or business power, it doesn’t matter.

And that’s why Robin Carnahan won’t recuse herself from what would otherwise be a non-issue… at least not without a hell of a fight.

- B.H.

No Bid, No Gain: KC Opens Can of Worms with Green Zone Contracts

It's quite a bit of crazy, but here’s how the story starts:

A Lee’s Summit energy auditor alleges that Kansas City officials acted unfairly this summer when they issued a $1.2 million no-bid contract for weatherizing homes in the city’s Green Impact Zone.

Heywood Parker, who said he paid hundreds of dollars to train as an energy auditor, claimed that the sole-source city contract shut his company out of potential inspection work in the zone, a 150-block central city area targeted for a variety of environmental improvement projects.

“It is so ugly,” Parker said. “I didn’t get a chance to bid.”

The problem is a little bigger, however.

Here’s how it breaks down: Kansas City signed said $1.2 million no-bid contract with Working Families’ Friend in September. WFF is a tiny non-profit in KC with no previous experience in this field of work. Heywood Parker’s company in Lee’s Summit, as a result, was shut out of the bidding process entirely.

The city justifies this by arguing that the money came from private entities and was effectively used as a grant to a charity based on Working Families’ Friend’s non-profit status.

In other words, they basically told Mr. Parker “We know we kinda screwed ya, but it was all technically legal so too damn bad.”

If that was the end of the story it probably wouldn’t see the light of day.

But it seems that KC’s awe-inspiring Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, who “helped launch the Green Zone”, was integral in the deal.

U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver… said he also was involved in finding the non-profit company to quickly accept the money from the utilities. Cleaver said he wanted the money to go to an established non-profit so that work could be provided to members of Local 264, a construction and general laborers union.

So Cleaver, who began the project, worked to steer money to his idea of the “right” company in order for the project to benefit a local union.

And then there’s this:

Working Families’ Friend was established in 2003 “to provide assistance, training and support to working families in need,” according to tax records. It was set up by Mike Montgomery, a former labor liaison officer with the local chapter of United Way.

Much of its income goes for salaries and benefits for Montgomery and one other employee. In its 2010 tax return, the organization reported spending $277,887 in grants to clients and $318,131 in compensation and benefits to its employees.

Last year this “non-profit” paid over $318,000 to just two employees!? Somebody’s profiting pretty handily.

KC Star notes that WFF will use only 10% of the funds as a project administrator and that the remainder will be paid out to a for-profit company in Overland Park to actually do the work. But this only complicates matters further.

Heywood Parker’s complaints do not stop with the contract.

[H]e said he is angry he and others were not allowed to take part in a program partially designed to provide jobs for minority contractors.

He said he has filed a complaint with the city’s Human Resources Department.

This situation is a mess and could well turn out to be a nightmare for Kansas City. There are several issues at play in this particular issue and none of them are pretty.

A little foresight would do wonders for the city when dealing with problems like this.

Or even just a bit of common sense. 

- B.H.

Gov. Nixon's Mindless Borrowing Philosophy Fixes Nothing

Last week Missouri Governor Jay Nixon unveiled his brilliant plan (and I use that phrase loosely) to dig the state out of next year’s $750 million budget hole: borrow money from Missouri’s universities.

It was a plan so outrageous that one state Senator called it a “Bernie Madoff style ponzi scheme”.

Opposition is now mounting as members of Missouri’s legislature have begun reacting to the idea.

Their number one complaint? That Nixon never even included them in discussions before announcing the potential plan.

Considering any such borrowing scheme would be required to pass through Missouri’s legislature for approval this may not have been the most effective path for Nixon to take, even if it was the most direct.

"Everybody knows we have a big problem, and I think people expect us to work together to solve the problem," said Rep. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, the House's budget chairman "Going out and lone-gunman on this thing is not helping this situation."

Senate Appropriations Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, said the governor didn't include the Legislature in his talks with the universities, something that must change.

"If the governor wants to have a discussion, you've got to include all the parties," he said.

The bigger – and unmentioned – problem, however, is the train of thought that led to this proposal in the first place. The reason for the shortfall is that stimulus funds are all dried up, so now the state must find a new source (victim) to bleed dry in the name of social justice and entitlement programs and other big government bureaucracy.

But the stimulus was a stopgap. Its intention was to allow time for states and businesses to get their affairs in order.

Jay Nixon failed in every way to reign in spending and get the budget under control. His own plan is the proof.

And now his idea of a grand solution is to replace one stopgap with another stopgap.

He is literally passing the buck.

This is not a solution. It’s barely a temporary fix.

The state legislature should stand together and nip this in the bud.

Failure to do so could have devastating consequences, not just because of the plan itself but for the destructive and mindless philosophy this thinking represents.

- B.H.

KC’s “Occupy” Headache

Those in the Occupy KC movement, struggling to stay relevant in a rapidly evolving political landscape, have decided to hold a march (of sorts) on December 30.

Traffic at and around Ninth and Main would, as a result, have to be shut down.

This shut-down would cost $4,100 to accomplish. The Occupiers are refusing to pay it. In fact, they can’t pay it. They only have a thousand bucks in the donation jar. The city, they say, should foot the bill for their anti-capitalist propaganda machine.

Claiming that they are being charged to express their free speech rights, they have requested what’s known as an “indigency waiver”.

But are they being charged to exercise their right to free speech? Absolutely not.

They are not just “speaking”. Their actions would require a major downtown intersection to be closed and traffic rerouted, as well as a number of police officers to secure the location and handle the ensuing traffic fiasco.

They have every right to “speak” in any part of the city, including the intersection of Ninth and Main, and they can. They have been. This is about actions, not words.

Freeloaders like this group of indigents are the reason that shoestring budgets are busting all levels of government across the country, and yet they somehow have the gall to demand the city pay for their disruptive behavior in addition to their handouts.

Offered a perfectly reasonable alternative – marching on the sidewalks for free instead of the streets for four grand – the protesters said “no”.

The Occupiers (not just here, but nationwide) have shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of children playing childish games, plain and simple.

Thankfully, Mayor Sly James also hit back with a “no”.

When the group argued their case – that they are working on a “shoestring budget” – James reminded them that the city is, too.

(Look no further than this year’s 1,500 water main breaks for proof.)

But the bigger question may lie with who these “Occupiers” really are. Story after story has come out shedding light on major issues surrounding their supposed “movement” such as drugs, prostitution, and the homeless.

So what is the Occupy KC movement even about anymore? Are they a political movement at all or are they just a random collection of Kansas City’s vagrants?

Sunday’s edition of the KC Star featured a letter to the editor titled “KC Homeless Camp?” that shed some light on the situation.

I went to the Occupy Kansas City site to take some things, and though I didn’t spend a lot of time there, I got the feeling that it was more of a homeless community pretending to be a political organization. There are a lot of tents, but the five people I saw — well, it didn’t seem like they would know what day it was. I just can’t tell if it is real or a scam.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the movement from someone who is apparently willing to help out.

The city needs to take a stand, here and now, and decide not to cave in to the demands of a minority of simple-minded anti-American socialists.

And if, in fact, their “encampment” is nothing more than a homeless camp where drugs and prostitutes are freely passed from tent to tent the city needs to step in and take drastic steps to fix the situation before it gets truly out of hand.

- B.H.

Jay Nixon’s Ponzi Scheme for Missouri Universities

Missouri, like nearly every state in the union, is facing a massive budget shortfall next year: $750 million.

You could call Governor Jay Nixon’s plan to make up the difference “creative” to say the least… if by "creative" you meant "freakin’ crazy".

Spending cuts, entitlement reforms, cutting the government workforce, actual economic development, de-regulation, tort reform… these are all issues that should be on the table when it comes down to crunch-time in a situation like this.

So what does Jay Nixon do?

He asks for $107 million in no-interest loans from Missouri’s universities.

Yes, you read that right.

Jay Nixon wants to take over a hundred million dollars from Missouri’s universities – the Univ. of Mo. system, MSU-Springfield, UCM-Warrensburg, Truman State, and SMSU – and ‘roll’ that money into the budget.

Adding insult to injury, Nixon’s plan would also cut the state’s scholarship funding in half, forcing the universities to make up the sizeable difference.

Additionally, the universities would have no guarantee on repayment of the loans… and we all know how good governments are at handling money – especially Missouri’s.

And if it were to be paid back in full and on time – over a span of seven years – the money Nixon’s administration plans to repay the loans with would be siphoned from the state’s college loan authority.

It’s a plan that Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, likened to a “Bernie Madoff-style Ponzi scheme” that may be designed “to make it look like something's being funded that isn't really being funded…”

This “idea” – if you can even call it that – is a joke. A very dangerous joke.

With one calamity after another becoming the standard operating procedure in the Nixon administration one question springs to mind:

What fresh hell is next?

- B.H.

Missouri, like nearly every state in the union, is facing a massive budget shortfall next year: $750 million.

 

You could call Governor Jay Nixon’s plan to make up the difference “creative” to say the least… if by creative you meant freakin’ crazy.

 

Spending cuts, entitlement reforms, cutting the government workforce, actual economic development, de-regulation, tort reform… these are all issues that should be on the table when it comes down to crunch-time in a situation like this.

 

So what does Jay Nixon do?

 

He asks for $107 million in no-interest loans from Missouri’s universities.

 

Yes, you read that right.

 

Jay Nixon wants to take over a hundred million dollars from Missouri’s universities – the Univ. of Mo. system, MSU-Springfield, UCM-Warrensburg, Truman State, and SMSU – and ‘roll’ that money into the budget.

 

Adding insult to injury, Nixon’s plan would also cut the state’s scholarship funding in half, forcing the universities to make up the sizeable difference.

 

Additionally, the universities would have no guarantee on repayment of the loans… and we all know how good governments are at handling money – especially Missouri’s.

 

And if it were to be paid back in full and on time – over a span of seven years – the money Nixon’s administration plans to repay the loans with would be siphoned from the state’s college loan authority.

 

It’s a plan that Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, likened to a “Bernie Madoff-style Ponzi scheme” that may be designed “to make it look like something's being funded that isn't really being funded…”

 

This “idea” – if you can even call it that – is a joke. A very dangerous joke.

 

With one calamity after another becoming the standard operating procedure in the Nixon administration one question springs to mind:

 

What fresh hell is next?

McCaskill: Don’t Take Me Seriously…

In 2009, Claire McCaskill declared: “Don’t take anyone seriously that says one thing and does another. That’s the worst sin of all.”

She should’ve thought twice about that one.

As we close the book on 2011, Claire McCaskill has given us yet another reason not to take her seriously by voting down the Balanced Budget Amendment.

‘Chameleon Claire’ has claimed to be in favor of cutting big government spending, but her vote on this issue shows she’s just another ‘sinner’ in Washington. As the only real plan to tackle out-of-control government waste and reign in our overblown budgets, if she stood true to her word she would have supported the attempt to curtail fiscal irresponsibility.

But Claire McCaskill is not really for cutting big government… earlier in the year she voted against even debating a balanced budget proposal.

Any politician can stand in front of a camera and blather on about what they supposedly would or would not support, but actions speak louder than words.

And Claire McCaskill’s vote speaks volumes.

You shouldn’t take any candidate seriously that doesn’t take their own decisions seriously.

In her own words, Claire McCaskill cannot.

- B.H.

Nixon's DED: Striving for Incompetence

Back in September we pointed out that another Nixon-backed business loan had backfired in spectacular fashion: Kirksville company Wi-Fi Sensors – which had secured a $1 million loan from the geniuses at the Department of Economic Development as well as a dog-and-pony show in the form of a priceless Jay Nixon photo-op – had apparently gone belly-up, missing their first payment on the loan and laying off their employees.

Now, it seems, much like the Mamtek scandal that Nixon and the DED have been embroiled in for months, the due diligence on Wi-Fi Sensors was nothing if not sub-par when it came to vetting the project that would receive a million taxpayer dollars.

The Kirksville Daily Express reports that when Wi-Fi Sensors sought the loan from the Missouri Department of Economic Development, the state of California had a lien against a former company that was operated by Wi-Fi's president.

Peter Fuhr and David Fuhr were listed as "active owners" for Wi-Fi Sensors on the company's loan application. A tax lien was filed in January 2006 against Peter Fuhr's former company, B4HI Inc., for $1,067.15 in unpaid taxes from 2003.

Not to mention that…

The business' address matches the home address listed for a 2004 federal tax lien for $126,467 against Peter and Moira Hutchins-Fuhr. The federal tax lien was released in December 2006, [but] the Santa Cruz County, Calif., recorders office said no release or satisfaction had been filed for the lien against B4HI Inc.

“Due diligence” is apparently not in the vocabulary of the people in Nixon’s administration who are responsible for, well… due diligence.

The Fuhrs [stated] that Missouri officials did not raise the issue when they applied for the loan.

Of course they didn’t raise the issue. They’re morons.

And isn’t it comforting to know that they are in charge of the sole governmental body literally tasked with giving our money away?

Oversights like these, if you can call them merely ‘oversights’, are not isolated incidents. They show a clear pattern of incompetence on the part of everyone in the Dept. of Economic Development all the way up to Jay Nixon himself, and they are an embarrassment to the state of Missouri.

The people of Missouri should now do their own ‘due diligence’ regarding the state’s executive branch and hold the responsible parties accountable.

- B.H.

Judge Indicates Support for New Missouri Maps

Redistricting has been a tooth-and-nail battle royale in almost every state, and Missouri is no exception.

Due to losing one congressional seat due to the census results the Missouri state legislature eliminated Russ Carnahan’s St. Louis based seat, whipping the litigious left into a frenzy.

Now, it seems, things are not going their way.

A Cole County Judge is indicating he’ll support the Congressional lines drawn by the Missouri legislature. […]

After Thursday’s hearing, Cole County Judge Dan Green says those parties challenging the new lines have “a political quarrel” with the lawmakers who drew up the maps, as opposed to a legal one. He asked the lawyers defending the map draw up a proposed statement supporting their position.

It may sound like good news, but what do the members of the litigious left do when they lose a lawsuit?

They re-file the lawsuit.

Whatever the ruling, it is likely to be appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Comforting, isn’t it?

Our legal system on proud display… but at least it’s one step in the right direction.

- B.H.

What Were They Thinking!? Dem Consultants and Dirty Laundry(ing)

The immensity of the complaint makes it sound like a punchline, but it’s no joke – a 425 page ethics complaint has been filed by former state representative Cynthia Davis, currently the Constitution Party’s candidate for Lt. Governor, detailing no less than 68 ethics violations revolving around money that was conspicuously “moved around” by partners at Regional Growth Consultants, a Democratic consulting company.

Basically, in order to allow large contributions to pour in from anonymous donors for direct mail campaigns, RGC would take money from “clients” (donors) for “services” (nothing) and would “donate” (funnel) the money to two outside “political action committees” (laundering operations) run by RGC Partner Danny Powell and his son John Powell, respectively, who would then “hire” (funnel the money back to) RGC to do direct mail campaigns for the candidate the original clients (donors) supported.

This process allowed for the names of the original clients/contributors to be kept off the government records they would have otherwise been listed on, hiding major donors behind a seedy cloak of anonymity.

Additionally, it may be one of the dumbest ideas ever executed by a political consulting company. It’s not as if there still isn’t any evidence to show the horribly unethical thing they’ve done. (Apparently there’s a few hundred pages of it.)

St. Charles County Democratic Chairman Tommy Roberts, also a partner at the company, would allegedly direct potentially large contributors to RGC for this purpose before acting as a go-between for the printing company as well.

It’s hard to understand how they got caught red-handed… they launched a devious plan without an actual devious plan. Taking that route is a three step process; it goes something like this:

1. Start a PAC to run crappy fake campaigns.
2. ???
3. Lose all your campaigns anyway.

And that’s about as much control as Regional Growth Consultants had over this epic fail.

- B.H.