Matt Blunt Balances Budget on Backs of Landlords

Blunt Attacks Wasteful Spending Policies: Leasing Consolidation Banks More Than $1 Million:

"Missouri taxpayers should be offended. Their hard-earned tax dollars were being thrown away on expensive leases while perfectly good state-owned space went underutilized and even sat vacant," Blunt said. "We are making responsible changes to deliver Missourians the efficient, effective and responsible state government they deserve but have been denied in recent years."

Under Blunt's guidance, Office of Administration (OA) Commissioner Mike Keathley has implemented dramatic changes that will save taxpayers from wasteful spending and could add up to millions of dollars in savings over time.

One more example of how Matt Blunt is trying to kill the state economy by keeping tax money from flowing. Instead, he's working to leave Missouri taxpayers to spend the money as they see fit, and everyone knows that individuals waste their money on frivolous things, like food, housing, shelter, savings, and entertainment.

Matt Blunt Not Worried About Approval Rating

Gov. Blunt isn't troubled by survey showing low approval rating:

Despite earning some big political wins on many of his top priorities, Gov. Matt Blunt's popularity is slumping. Blunt accomplished many of his goals during his first legislative session as governor, but not without some controversy.

A new poll by SurveyUSA is not good news for the governor. It surveyed each governor's approval rating in all 50 states and found that Blunt falls at the bottom of the list.

The poll found that only about a third of the 600 Missouri voters surveyed approve of the job that Blunt is doing, with a staggering 57 percent disapproving. That’s one of the lowest approval ratings in the nation. Only two governors received lower marks.

"There are a lot of problems with that polling service, but I don't pay attention to those type of polling numbers. It's certainly different than numbers I've seen," said Blunt, in a recent interview.

The governor calls the poll flawed because it’s done by an automated computer -- not a real person.

It's good to see that the Governor is making the hard decisions without his finger in the wind.

But not all "Republicans" are happy:

Republican Dewayne Long enthusiastically voted for Blunt last fall, but now "I have some reservations," he said.

Long says he agrees with much of what the governor has done, but thinks the governor overreached on cuts to Medicaid.

"I've talked to a number of Republicans who have not been happy with the first six to eight months of the Blunt term," said Long.

Of course, although KYTV does not identify Dewayne Long's profession, we here at DMB2008 suspect he might be the Executive Director of National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Southwest Missouri. In this case, one suspects that the medicaid cuts directly impact his profession, and that he's not just joe Republican as presented by KYTV.

Because "Responsibility" Is Too Long of a Word

In a story in the Kansas City Star, a poli sci professor explains:

Mark Rushefsky, a political scientist at Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, said the new policies represent a move away from the idea of shared action to deal with common concerns, whether for the poor and disabled or for consumers generally. They are steps toward what President Bush calls "the ownership society."

"The ownership society means you're on your own," Rushefsky said. "It is moving away from the idea of collective responsibility for health care or income maintenance. You see this in the private sector with the decline in private pensions."

The result, he said, is an increase in the average person's risk as both public and private programs are unraveled.

"The future will be more uncertain as people rely more on their own resources," Rushefsky said. "On Medicaid, Blunt is out there in front. But his overall policy reflects a reduction of the safety-net philosophy.

The political scientist was unable to comment on the efficiency or economic benefits of moving "responsibility" out of the hands of bureacrats whose primary interest is in amassing power, budget, and job security for themselves and whose secondary interest is the public whom they serve to the hands of individuals who have a stake in individual outcomes (not just the aggregate upticks in statistics which prove need for more power, budget, and job security for bureaucrats).

Matt Blunt Oppresses the Litigious, Their Attorneys

Missouri's lawsuit limits toughest in nation:

When attorneys for several residents of a rural town along the Mississippi River filed a property damage lawsuit alleging contamination from a lead smelter, they cast a wide legal net that eventually included 11 defendants from across the nation.

But one man stood out above all - not because of his alleged wrongdoing, but because of where he lived.

Marvin Kaiser, the chief financial officer of the nation's leading lead producer Doe Run Co., lived in the city of St. Louis. And that's where plaintiffs' attorneys wanted to try their case.

Doe Run fought the filing all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court, which in a split decision last year ruled the case could go forward in St. Louis based on Kaiser's connection.

The ruling became part of the rallying cry for business groups outraged over "venue shopping," in which attorneys look for whatever legal link they can find to file lawsuits in places they view most preferable.

Missouri's Republican-led Legislature and governor responded with a new law - effective Aug. 28 - that will require all lawsuits seeking money for alleged wrongdoing to be filed where the victim was first injured. Had the law been in effect for the Doe Run case, attorneys would have had to file it in Jefferson County, where the lead smelter is.

Missouri's new venue law appears to be the most restrictive in the nation, according to a review completed last week by the National Center for State Courts at the request of The Associated Press.

Undoubtedly, this is just one of Governor Blunt's attempts to restrict the rights of attorneys to pursue their lottery ambitions and the rights of the aggrieved to collect pennies on the dollar for injuries both real and imagined.

Another Draft Movement Afoot?

Some rumors are percolating that Fred Thompson, actor and former Senator, might seek the nomination in 2008.

Although we've enjoyed Mr. Thompson's performances in Die Hard 2 and the commercial he taped after 9/11 (Real Audio format), we cannot get on the President Thompson bandwagon.

We are, after all, Draft Matt Blunt 2008.

(Link seen on Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Apparently, Professor Bainbridge approves, too. But we here at DMB2008 remain unmoved.

Matt Blunt Balances Education Budget on Backs of Wealthier School Districts

Matt Blunt has done it again! Apparently, teachers unions and administrators are aghast (or, as their product might spell it, agasd) because the new Missouri state educational funding formula allocates less money than before to wealthier school districts and more money than before to less wealthy districts:

More than half of Missouri's school districts stand to suffer because of a provision in a new school funding formula, according to a teachers union.

Let's read the story. So who gets more money? Troubled urban districts:

• St. Louis city schools.
  
  
• Kansas City city schools.

Who gets less money? Flush suburban districts:

• Parkway.
  
  
• Ladue.
  
  
• Lindbergh.
  
  
• Kirkwood.
  
  
• Pattonville.
  
  
• Webster Groves.
  
  
• Clayton.
  
  
• Brentwood.

Oh, sure, those school districts would argue they could flush more money:

Lindbergh School District Superintendent James Sandfort called the new formula an affront to Lindbergh students and taxpayers. "My reaction was disbelief," Sandfort said Friday. "My assumption all along was that the school district would receive the same or a little more money in the coming years than what we have received. The impact is negative to some school districts where it was supposed to be at worst neutral. I can't believe this was what the governor or Legislature intended."

David Glaser, chief financial officer in the Rockwood School District, said: "Everyone always said no district would lose money under a new formula. That promise needs to be kept."

Especially if it was state tax money, which comes with less accountability than money raised in district. Because you really cannot ever have too many administrators, swimming pools, or gymnasia.

Oddly enough, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch failed to get on-the-record comments from school district officials who would receive more state money (not that they would go on the record supporting a limiting of tax money flowing into school coffers) nor from taxpayers, like me, who think this formula sounds like it's a better reapportionment of existing limited funds.

Let us here at DMB2008 then express our continued support of a governor (and hopefully President of the United States in 2009!) who can make hard financial decisions even when pressured by the normal lampreys of the left.

Someone in Hannibal Likes Matt Blunt

Otherwise, how would he get a headline like this: Blunt fulfills education promise:

Gov. Matt Blunt visited New London on Thursday to remind residents of Northeast Missouri that he is a man who keeps his promises. With a handful of children looking on, Blunt staged a ceremonial bill signing at the New London Elementary School. The bill will increase funding next year for public schools by $158 million.

Hey, did anyone notice a funding increase for education without raising taxes?

Matt Blunt Favors Personal Freedom

Matt Blunt comments on a group that wants to repeal motorcycle helmet laws:

On Thursday, Blunt blasted Rahn's comment and defended the Freedom of the Road Riders, a group that pushes motorcyclists' interests at the Capitol.

"They deserve the same level of respect as every other citizen who takes valuable time to share their concerns with their government officials," Blunt said in a statement. "MODOT just got a tremendous amount of new money from the people of this state to build new roads. I encourage them to remain focused on this vitally important directive from the people and to avoid picking fights with law-abiding citizens who are paying their bills."

Blunt's spokeswoman said he supports repealing the helmet law for adult riders. Earlier this year, when asked about a proposal that would have stepped up law enforcement powers to ticket people for not wearing seat belts, Blunt said, "I've never been real keen on government-imposed safety."

Not only fiscally responsible, Matt Blunt believes in personal responsibility and the freedom to choose.

Matt Blunt Balances Budget on Backs of Convicted Sex Offenders

Matt Blunt has decreed that convicted sex offenders will no longer receive Medicaid paid Viagra:

"Taxpayers' dollars should never be used to purchase sexual performance drugs for known sex offenders," Gov. Matt Blunt said in a statement.

Unfortunately, the governor doesn't seem to have elaborated for whom taxpayers' dollars should be used to purchase sexual performance drugs.

Matt Blunt Poll Numbers Slipping in Colorado

But at least he's getting attention. A progressivist columnist writes:

In Missouri, Gov. Matt Blunt piously declares that raising taxes on "hard-working families" is immoral even as he strives to eliminate Medicaid services for the poor. This Christian politician seems to have missed one of Jesus's most oft-repeated messages: Take care of the poor.

This writer, of course, implies that Matt Blunt is a poor Christian because he's not using the power of government to actively confiscate money from the working people, suck off the percentage that's the government's vig, and then spend the remainder on the poor.

Because Christian politicians vigorously use the government power only to enforce those policies of which progressives approve, namely employing progressives, but not for things like school prayer, abortion, gay marriage, or such. No, according to this author's edict, the government, not individuals, should opt for the poor.

I think Matt Blunt, Christian, believes that charity, Christian or otherwise, can match or exceed the government's handouts. This author, on the other hand, thinks that you have to force people to help others.

Marxists Apparently Hate Matt Blunt

Online Marxists don't like Matt Blunt:

Nationally and locally, right-wing Republicans are out to destroy Medicaid. They believe that the public health and medical service program is inefficient and unprofitable. In Missouri, Republican Governor Matt Blunt is hoping to set a national precedent by attempting to eliminate Medicaid in Missouri completely by 2008. Blunt and his right-wing corporate supporters are waging an ideological war against the poor and society’s most defenseless.

Hey, he's just helping the state whither away. Isn't that a Marxist ideal?

Another Induction?

US News and World Reports about a Draft Condoleeza Rice movement afoot (second item here).

Sorry, Condi, but we at DMB2008 support another induction at this time.

(Link seen on Althouse.)

Associated Press Compares Blunt to B. Holden

The Associated Press tars Matt Blunt with B. Holden's brush: Blunt follows Holden model in special session:

On the last day of the legislative session in his first year in office, the governor proclaimed that he had achieved a nearly complete success in passing priority legislation.

Among the exceptions were a failed transportation measure and one other item, which had seemed popular among lawmakers during the governor's State of the State speech.

When lawmakers adjourned in May, the governor immediately said he would call a September special session so that lingering priority could pass.

That was Democrat Bob Holden in 2001. And it is Republican Matt Blunt today.

The governors of opposite parties probably wouldn't want to be linked philosophically, but they have chosen similar political paths in their freshman terms.

Holden's special session dealt with prescription drugs for seniors; Blunt's will focus on anti-abortion legislation.

Yet Blunt's administration says any similarity is unintended -- and undesired.

"I can tell you unequivocally that in making this call we in no way intended to follow the Holden model," said Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson, "nor do we intend to follow that model on any other government changes we intended to seek."

Matt Blunt = B. Holden, or so the AP arithmetic goes. Good work, fellows, but we know that's why you went into journalism and not physics. Arithmetic is hard, journalism is not.

Not If We Can Help It

From a post at National Review Online entitled Gov. Blunt's Weird Science:

Blunt's battles have received less attention than Romney's — in part because Romney may be running for president in 2008, while any presidential ambitions Blunt has lie further in the future; in part because Massachusetts is in the northeastern corridor, which still interests the national media more than the Midwest.

Although we cannot move the state, we here at DMB2008 would like to think we can inspire a nationwide movement to Draft Matt Blunt 2008!

P.S. Matt Blunt, pro stem cell research? Sounds like something that could energize the libertarians who are thinking about voting other than Republican in 2008.

Update: Another Rovian Conspiracy distills the NRO article just to make clear that the NRO doesn't care for Blunt's position.

Post-Dispatch Begs Matt Blunt for Smoke, Mirrors

In an editorial entitled KATY TRAIL: Risky business, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch pleads with Matt Blunt:

MATT BLUNT surely doesn't want to be known as the governor who lost the Katy Trail State Park on a technicality. But unless he makes sure that the demolition of a railroad bridge in Boonville won't jeopardize the trail's future, he may get stuck with that rap.

Mr. Blunt should make sure, beyond any legal doubt, that the Katy Trail is protected before letting its owner, Union Pacific dismantle the bridge.

The 73-year-old railroad bridge hasn't held a train in two decades, and it's closed to hikers and bikers. Over the years, Union Pacific tried unsuccessfully to give the bridge away. But neither the town of Boonville nor the state wanted the cost or the liability. The bridge's only purpose is to maintain the legal fiction that the Katy Trail some day may be turned into a rail line again.

That's a very important illusion.

So the Post-Dispatch wants the governor to perform reverse eminent domain on Union Pacific and make the railroad keep its property, which the governments do not want, to maintain a legal fiction.

The Post-Dispatch wants more smoke and mirrors from government. Matt Blunt doesn't want business as usual in the government. Our vote is with Matt Blunt.

Matt Blunt: Family of Rulers

Missourians Fired Up! links to a Washington Post story about Roy Blunt, Matt's father. The story calls Missouri a family affair:

In Missouri, the Blunt organization is a family affair. His son Matt, 34, is governor, and his son Andrew, 29, is a top state government lobbyist whose client list is studded with major donors to his father.

I would agree that Matt's membership in a family whose only occupation is government "service" is a knock against him, as is the fact that he's not held a real job--in private industry--in his whole life. That doesn't adversely impact his performance in office, however, and it represents only an aesthetic preference as far as I, the individual voter, am concerned.

But we here at DMB2008 are not above a little tu quoque action regarding the whole "family affair" thing. Note:

• Mel Carnahan
  
  
• Jean Carnahan
  
  
• Russ Carnahan
  
  
• Robin Carnahan

A lot of families are founding company businesses in government. Unfortunate.

Matt Blunt Balances Budget on Backs of Private School Contractors

Area summer-school programs to take hit: Districts will have to rethink offerings after state cuts:

A change in Missouri's school-funding formula may mean ditching a summer-school program that has been credited by at least one Southwest Missouri superintendent with playing a role in the accreditation of his school district.

McDonald County Superintendent Randall Smith said he believes the state is making a mistake by not offering districts an incentive for having summer school. He said the lack of that incentive could affect the district's use of an outside contractor.

"When we started with Edison Schools in 2001, we were only provisionally accredited," Smith said. "Now we're fully accredited with distinction, and I have to give at least some of the credit to the summer-school program created by Edison Schools."

The new school-funding formula, adopted by the Legislature last week and sent to Gov. Matt Blunt for his signature, calls for more funding in general for schools, but it ends a policy of paying double for every hour of summer school attended by students.

I've not been atop the school funding issue; they've tinkered with the esoteric wealth redistribution formula and critics of the current Missouri state administration (Matt Blunt) equate it with a pogrom. But somehow, ending double payment wherein the state doled out tax payer dollars at two-for-one for every hour of student attendance in summer school seems like a good way to trim budget.

Unless you're the local school district being weaned from the drying Missouri state taxpayer teat.

Matt Blunt Balances Budget on Backs of Library Consortiums

After MOBIUS Subsidy Cut, Missouri Universities Must Pay More:

A Missouri House and Senate conference committee approved Governor Matt Blunt's proposal to cut $650,000 in funding for MOBIUS, the Missouri Bibliographic Information User System (MOBIUS), a statewide consortium of 60 members, mostly academic libraries. With library budgets already under stress, library officials had blasted the gubernatorial plan. The elimination of the subsidy will result in a 36 percent increase in dues for members, who already pick up more than three-quarters (roughly $1.5 million) of the consortium’s annual expenses. MOBIUS executive director George Rickerson told the Kansas City Star that, when MOBIUS was formed in 1998 "one of the fundamental assumptions" was that it would be a state-local partnership.

When you expect a higher government to continue, perpetually, to contribute money to a program, you're making a dangerous assumption.

Matt Blunt has to make tough choices. Although this particular program was undoubtedly nice, it remains a nicety whose partial state funding should be revoked. The universities can pick up the slack.

James Carville Doesn't Like Matt Blunt

James Carville doesn't like Matt Blunt:

Carville also talked about Missouri Governor Matt Blunt being rated the third worst governor in the county. Carville said that was proof Missouri people wanted to see change.

"The good news here is the people are catching on," Carville said. "They've already caught on in Missouri. It didn't take long."

If James Carville doesn't like Matt Blunt, I take it as a testament to Matt Blunt.

Matt Blunt Makes National Public Radio

National Public Radio has covered Matt Blunt's initiative to cut Medicaid:

Medicaid has become the single biggest budget item for most states, and nearly all of them are trying to curb its growth. In Missouri, plans to pare 90,000 people from the Medicaid rolls in 2005 have sparked a fierce debate over the morality of the cuts.

The proposals have opened a moral schism, with some preachers expressing outrage, but the governor, a devout Christian, defends the cuts as morally correct. Gov. Matt Blunt says not cutting Medicaid would force him to raise taxes -- and in his eyes, raising taxes is wrong.

Missouri's Medicaid program has more than doubled in size in the past decade, expanding to cover almost one in five citizens. And the governor's office says taking some people off Medicaid will motivate them to improve their lot in life.

NPR goes on with the usual anecdotes of those who will be cut, but hopefully those conservatives who listen to NPR will hear Matt Blunt's name and consider him for the presidential nomination in 2008.

(Link seen on The Panic Button who listens to NPR, apparently.)

Matt Blunt Didn't Unbalance Budget into Coffers of PR

The Missouri newspapers wail and tear at their hair that Matt Blunt didn't spend millions of dollars of the state budget on marketing and public relations to lobby for Missouri's military bases during the BRAC proceedings. State officials:

State officials opted not to hire consultants, saying they didn't want to use taxpayer money without any guarantee of success.

"The bottom line is this was an independent process and it was not going to be influenced by how much money was spent on outside consultants," said Paul Sloca, chief spokesman for the Missouri Department of Economic Development.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I don't understand why we allow our governments to spend money on public relations or advertising at all. However, some local officials think the state should have poured money into the coffers of the journalists' friends:

"I think it's unfortunate, because that's how you retain tax dollars in our state, is by keeping quality jobs," [St. Louis County Executive Charles] Dooley said. "In my mind, we cannot afford not to be aggressive in this type of endeavor."

Dooley would spend the taxpayers' money to enrich consultants while possibly subtly altering the BRAC cuts. Matt Blunt did not.

But that's why this blog is Draft Matt Blunt 2008 and not Draft Dooley 2008.

Matt Blunt Passes

The Kansas City Star's Steve Kraske rounds up passing marks for Matt Blunt in his first year as governor:

* B. "The expectations weren't high. The governor has done a good job. No one's going to get too critical of him." - George Connor, Southwest Missouri State University.

* A-minus. "In some respects, he pretty much got what he wanted." - Rick Hardy, University of Missouri-Columbia.

* C. "I don't hear anybody saying that he's out in front, that he's - really a change from the past. (But) I don't hear people condemning him either. It's too soon to tell." - David Webber, University of Missouri-Columbia.

* My take: B-minus. One of the worst things you can do as governor is come up empty your first session out. Blunt avoided that.

Hopefully, next election the country will give him the promotion we at DMB2008 think he deserves.

Kansas City Star Blames Matt Blunt for Not Raising Taxes

The Kansas City Star condemns Matt Blunt and the Missouri legislature for not raising taxes. No, wait, they condemn them for taking the steps to prevent a tax increase:

Gov. Matt Blunt got most of what he wanted in his first legislative session as governor. However, it came at the expense of thousands of low-income Missourians, the elderly, people with disabilities and foster children.

Republican lawmakers, working closely with a governor from their own party, made excessive, short-sighted cuts in state government and sometimes favored certain business interests over the broader public good.

I grow weary of this trope, which assumes a priori that government can and must fix all that ails all citizens, and that those citizens who have real or imagined needs have the right to impose their needs upon the rest of the state citizens.

I hope Matt Blunt can continue to withstand the harpies and furies of paper editorial boards and can further trim the state budget to manageable, sustainable (without continual tax increases) levels.

Matt Blunt Inspires Legislator to Cut His Benefits

Matt Blunt has inspired state legislator to remove more financial burden from Missouri taxpayers--the cost of his health insurance:

When lawmakers in Jefferson City decided to drop health coverage for 90,000 poor people, state Sen. Victor Callahan decided there was only one thing to do.

Drop his own.

Last week, in an unusual protest for an elected official, Callahan filled out a form to voluntarily drop his coverage. He has no other coverage.

Callahan, 39 and single without children, has vowed that he will not resume his coverage until those 90,000 Missourians have their coverage restored.

Matt Blunt is truly an inspirational leader if he can convince a legislator to stand on his principles when those principles won't actually cost tax money. Now, if only we could get him to perform the same miracles in Washington, where the legislators fall into the top 7% of annual taxable income by mere election.

Matt Blunt: Not Peaking Too Early

Survey USA reports that, of all 50 governors, Matt Blunt ranks 48th in approval rating, with a 33% approval rating and a 57% disapproval rating.

At Another Rovian Conspiracy, St Wendeler attributes it to people reading the heavily slanted news reports bashing Blunt's battle to trim the growth of the state budget. He might be right.

Dustbury offers this analysis:

The average is 48/41; bringing up the rear are some people with serious problems, Ohio's Bob Taft being the worst off by a considerable margin. There doesn't seem to be any party preference: Republicans hold the top two and the bottom three slots. Of course, none of this is guaranteed to last.

I see that Arnold Schwarzenegger also comes in under average at #40, so I offer this analysis: Governors trying to do the right thing with state government, such as Schwarzenegger and Blunt are unpopular because they tee off a bunch of different interests with their varied cash cow government programs. So perhaps it's a testament to Blunt's doing the right thing by all Missouri citizens that so many don't like him.

But, on a positive note, Blunt still comes in in the middle of the pack (#25) when sorted alphabetically by state name. Sorting by governor name, he comes in much higher.

Matt Blunt Cripples Litigation Economy to Benefit Home Builders

Oh, the horror! Now Matt Blunt supports tort reform that prevents new home owners from suing home builders until the home builders have an opportunity to repair any defects:

Homeowners will have to complete specific steps before suing a contractor for poor workmanship, under a bill passed by the Missouri General Assembly.

Supporters of the "right-to-repair bill" say it will encourage dialogue between homeowners and contractors, negating the need to go to court. Critics say the bill provides a way for contractors to delay making repairs and forces consumers to jump through hoops to get redress for poor work.

The House passed the legislation 126-32 on Monday. The Senate passed it a short time later 32-1 and sent it to Republican Gov. Matt Blunt, who has expressed support.

Doesn't Matt Blunt understand he's potentially crippling the legal industry by acceding to the whims of people who actually make things? Or doesn't he care?

(Another story in the Columbia Tribune.)

If We Get Our Way, This Guy Is Right

From the Voices section of the Kansas City Star, which affords a platform to people who have opinions but lack the skill or drive to put more than a couple of sentences together (or a blog where a couple of sentences are all you need!), we get this hopeful thought:

There is about as much chance of Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt being re-elected in 2008 as there is for Pat Buchanan to be the grand marshal of a gay pride parade

We here at DMB2008 hope this is true: We'd like to elect Matt Blunt President of the United States, not see him re-elected governor of Missouri. Because we're not patient, and 2012 or 2016 might be too late.

Matt Blunt Would Whack Amtrak If He Could

Columnist Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star rode aboard the Ann Rutelidge Amtrak train line and got a column out of it. And although he complains about the service, he doesn't forget to dig at Matt Blunt:

In Missouri, Gov. Matt Blunt was eager to whack the state rail subsidy along with all the other programs he proposed cutting, particularly Medicaid.

"We're following the federal lead," a Blunt spokeswoman was quoted as saying last month. "Without the federal funds, it's likely Missouri service would be affected anyway."

They've been predicting the death of Amtrak almost since the beginning more than 30 years ago.

Never has the system paid for itself. And never have the politicians been happy about that, even as they gladly spend many billions more on highways and airports, which also don't pay for themselves.

Let's compare the apples to oranges, shall we?

	Railroads	Highways	Airports
Ongoing costs:	Trains (means of locomotion) Depots (buildings) Rail, bridges (conduit)	Asphalt, Paint (Means of conduit)	Buildings Concrete for landing strips
Easily Extensible?	No, needs tracks laid.	Yes, needs just some cement poured to connect or augment existing network.	Yes, just needs buildings and landing strips.
Most costs of travel born by:	Government	Travellers who drive cars or trucks on highway	Vendors of travel who operate the planes and pass the cost onto the traveller, but unfortunately often to the government in the form of bailout pleas.

So, do we see a difference in kind here?

• Highways allow the government to ease transportation by autos and trucks.
  
  
• Airports allow the government to ease transportation by plane.
  
  
• Amtrak, which forces the government to bear all costs of an outmoded, niche form of transportation.

The state and the country would be better served if its elected leaders would show a little more spine and allow privatization of passenger railroad. I expect TrackBlue or Northeastern Air would come along and provide shorter, regional route service and might make money at it.

Matt Blunt Balances the Budget on the Back of "Sandy"

In its standard way, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch starts a story, entitled Facing budget cuts, CAC could ‘cease to exist', with an anecdote that tugs at our heartstrings:

Imagine growing up in an atmosphere where domestic violence was commonplace and your own father sexually abused you.

As horrific as it sounds, this was reality for "Sandy" (not her real name).

The abuse and violence were so bad that Sandy initially denied the situation existed to Division of Family Service caseworkers. She denied it because she was too frightened to tell the truth.

But when caseworkers took her to the Child Advocacy Center in De Soto, everything changed. The fear subsided and Sandy spoke about her abuse. Her abuser eventually pleaded guilty and is now behind bars.

Of course, it goes from tugging our heartstrings to encouraging the state government to continue to cut our pursestrings to fund a domestic abuse shelter for which Governor Blunt might 1.9 million dollars in funding. Split across 14 centers, that means that the shelter that helped "Sandy" would lose a little over $100,000.

One would think the organization could find $100,000 per shelter, but people who would lose the free money disagree:

"I have spoken to the (governor's) general counsel and their response was to let charities step in and pick up the money," Wilkins said. "The fact is that these people operate on a tremendous amount of grant money and contributions already and there is a limit to what you can get from the private sector, especially for what I believe is an office in the government sector."

Sounds like Governor Blunt could help the shelters out by removing that dreaded office in the government sector tag, and perhaps a corporation could step in with naming rights or box tickets.

Okay, perhaps that last thought is a little silly, but so are the wailings and lamentations for $100,000 a year for these small programs that the government cuts. The government is full of these relatively small (by government standards) programs whose work the private sector, whether charities or businesses, could handle, in many cases more efficiently than the government since there's no automatic increase every year into perpetuity.

Post-Dispatch Balances Budget on Backs of Taxpayers

At least, one could think that from the beginning of this editorial:

THE GOVERNOR and the Missouri Legislature have made a lot of progress toward devising a new, fairer school funding formula. There's just one thing missing: the money to pay for it.

This is a lot like buying a big house without lining up the money to pay the mortgage. Or, as the Springfield News-Leader put it in an editorial on Friday, buying a fancy SUV with all the extras on the hope that your boss might give you an extra big raise next year.

In other words, this is tomfoolery.

Indeed, to proffer to spend money one doesn't have would be foolish. For someone outside the government. Fortunately, Jay Nixon, Missouri's Attorney General, knows where the Missouri state government will get the money:

"The way they have passed it," Mr. Nixon said, "they are funding it by cutting Medicaid for poor people. There'll be seven more years of cuts."

Excellent! It's zero sum, and the money comes from existing programs. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch should be happy, right? What more could it want besides funded education and no tax increases. Wait, they couldn't.....

The last time that the Legislature rewrote the school funding formula to make it fairer, it passed new taxes to pay for the improvements. The Outstanding Schools Act, championed by then-Gov. Mel Carnahan, included a $310 million income tax increase. This was the tax increase that Republicans railed against election after election as the "biggest tax increase in state history."

The St. Louis Post Dispatch wants more taxes. Perhaps that's why its subscriber base cannot afford to keep up subscriptions; they're too busy paying for all the the paper's pet programs instituted under a decade of Democrat rule.

And Jay Nixon, tired of being third fiddle in a JV hoe-down band, wants them, too, if they will help him get elected to the governorship after Matt Blunt is drafted to run for the presidency in 2008.

Matt Blunt Balances Budget on Backs of Volunteers

From the story "Blunt gets spending wishes", we get this confirmation of human depravity:

Rep. Danie Moore, R-Fulton, saw a bright side to the cuts. She said 28 volunteers will take over a successful substance abuse program that the state is closing at the Jefferson City Correctional Center.

"This is a good example of citizens in our state stepping forward to do the right thing when we do not have the money to finance programs that are working and working well," Moore said.

Curse Matt Blunt for allowing these people to show their compassion and humanity!

Spenditarians and Democrats know that services are best doled out not by people who want to help, but by bored state automatons who are only punching the clock until cush retirement with government employee benefits.

Newspaper Columnist Presents False Dilemma

Tony Messenger, in his column for the Columbia Tribune, lashes out at Matt Blunt's decision to trim the government:

Irony is a governor handing out pink slips and then celebrating Public Service Recognition Week.

Welcome to the world of Missouri government in 2005.

In the budget that must be passed by the Missouri General Assembly this week, thousands of state jobs are cut, a directive from Gov. Matt Blunt. No raises are planned. Budgets are tight. Still, the governor wants to tell the rank and file what he thinks of them. So he and his department heads are pushing participation in the national Public Service Recognition Week. The governor even sent out a news release announcing that yesterday he planned to honor the state employees he hasn’t fired.

"Missouri is blessed with state employees who are dedicated to helping meet the needs of all Missourians," Blunt said in a news release.

Next year, it will be blessed with about 2,000 fewer such employees.

Messenger doesn't understand one can cut employees and still appreciate the contributions of the employees. Letting people go isn't something easy, nor is it done lightheartedly, despite what you read on DMB2008.

Blunt's priorities and goals don't match Messenger's; Blunt wants to hold the line on Missouri taxes and keep its budget in check. Messenger wants to CHAMPION THE PEOPLE! regardless of the impact on the other people who have to fund the largesse.

Matt Blunt Balances Budget on Backs of Bicyclists

According to a story in the Kansas City Star (Bridge path would be treat), Governor Matt Blunt doesn't want to spend Federal transportation grants to transform an old railroad bridge to a hiking/biking trail:

Not so fast, says the national Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Why won't Missouri tap some of its $37 million in federal transportation enhancement funds to fix the bridge?

Gov. Matt Blunt — reversing a decision by the previous administration — recently gave the Union Pacific Railroad authorization to tear the bridge down and sell the steel as salvage.

No word on why the national Rails-to-Trails Conservancy cannot come up with the required $2,000,000 of its budget to actually put into practice its name; undoubtedly, its budget of private money sent in by people who support its goals has higher priorities in fund-raising, press-releasing, and seminar-having.

Instead, the Missouri state government should take a portion of its share of Federal tax money gleaned from citizens in Missouri as well as Wyoming, Utah, Mississippi, and the rest to turn this unused railroad bridge to something that the vacationing well-to-do will use, but the vast majority of Missourians will not.

I say, if the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy or another private group can match the price of the scrap and sign a contract to improve the bridge, they can have it. Otherwise, scrap it.

Editorial Column Favors Corrections Education Cuts

The Springfield News Leader runs an editorial column by the director of Missouri Department of Corrections entitled Prisoners can get an education. The conclusion:

Gov. Blunt has made a responsible directive that state government must operate within the taxpayers' means. We fully support the governor in this commitment. Our plan to prioritize the department's academic resources will maintain our commitment to every one of the 30,000 inmates who will eventually be released while saving state taxpayers $1,440,556.

Matt Blunt has convinced this bureacrat to not seek more budget for his fiefdom. That ranks short of miracle.

Matt Blunt Balances Budget on Backs of Organic Farmers

From Bill McClellan's column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, we encounter this traumatizing tale of woe begotten by Matt Blunt's starvation budget:

DREW KIMMELL IS in the organic pecan business, but he sees well beyond pecans. He sees a revolution in what we eat. The entire food production system is changing, he says. People want safer food, better-tasting food. They want to stay away from chemicals. They want natural. What's more, they're willing to pay for it. The organic food business is booming.

And just as the organic food movement is taking off, Missouri is dropping its organic certification program.

Sorry, that's the St. Louis Post-Dispatch leading with the anecdote of the downtrodden. Here's the meat of what's happened:

No big surprise. It's money. The program was going to cost the state $120,000 for the coming fiscal year.

Actually, some of that cost would have been covered by fees. The state charged $100 for certification. Processors also pay for certification. In addition to the 90 farmers, there are 17 processors. Of course, that still comes out to only $10,700. Advocates of the program point out that the farmers are making money and paying taxes, and some of them, especially the ones on smaller farms, wouldn't be doing either without the program.

To make a long story short, the state of Missouri was running a program to certify organic produce as organic, and it was losing money on the proposition; the costs of processing fees fell short about $110,000 a year. Meanwhile, the people who were using the state of Missouri to add value to their products are making money hand over fist. Suddenly, they're faced with the prospect of having to pay, with their own money, an independent company to certify their products as naturally expensive.

And they weep for the loss of their subsidy. Meanwhile, the state of Missouri continues to face a budget shortfall and cannot afford needed services, much less special programs that make businessmen more profitable.

No one's calling for Matt Blunt's head for the increased cost of their organic bean sprouts yet, but we here at DMB2008 laud the tone he's set in Jefferson City.

Imagine what he could do in Washington, D.C.