Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans were once married to balanced budgets and conservative money management, but now they have run off with something new: the seduction of tax cuts and budget deficits. They try to cover up the truth about their new relationship by cooking the books. Kansas own Dwight D. Eisenhower would be appalled.

Eisenhower presided over the last period when the U.S. ran budget surpluses for several years in a row. To fund this, the top tax rate for some high-earning Americans exceeded 90 percent. When President John F. Kennedy backed legislation to drop that rate to around 70 percent, Eisenhower spoke against it, arguing that it would explode the deficit.

A few decades later, President Ronald Reagan commissioned the W.R. Grace Commission Report, the first of a long series of warnings, reminding Americans to prepare for the impending (now current) retirement of the Baby Boomer generation, which would create (is creating) a demographic bulge straining Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid particularly long-term care and the nations overall health care system.

Then, Republicans ditched predictable old deficit-reduction policies for the sexy appeal of tax cuts and deficits: the real priority of Reagan, the second President Bush, and many Congressional Republicans from the 1980s onward.

Since Sam Brownback was elected governor in 2010, they have brought their new love to Kansas. Once, moderate Republicans like Robert Bennett, Mike Hayden and Bill Graves proudly presided over conservatively managed, balanced budgets. Today, Kansas budget is balanced in name only: trust funds have been drained, future payments leveraged and highway bonds misused to create the illusion of a balanced budget that may technically pass legal muster, but will spell disaster down the road. Honestly, the thrill is gone.

Now President Donald Trump proposes massive public works projects (including the border wall), plus cuts to top-tax rates. Trumps signature phrase perfectly describes the accompanying deficit increase: it is going to be huge.

Some economists like Arthur Laffer argue that tax cuts stimulate enough economic growth to pay for themselves: lower rates on a broadening base produce more revenue than higher rates on a small base. Alas, this only works when taxes are particularly high beforehand, as with the Kennedy-era cut. When they are not, disaster ensues, as we have learned in Kansas.

Critics counter by stating, We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. Granted, dollar-for-dollar, government spending keeps rising, but this is misleading. Most federal dollars are already committed to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare or to interest on the national debt. At the state level resides another pernicious problem: the costs of providing government services increase each year.

Teachers and other government employees are not receiving more generous benefits. Rather, the cost of providing the same benefits goes up substantially each year, mainly due to those increasing health care and retirement costs. This has not been a problem until recently budget estimates factoring in these rising costs are readily available from the Legislatures own nonpartisan staff (but legislators may ignore them).

The anti-Brownback Republicans elected in 2016 are sounding some rather Eisenhower-like talk about a return to responsible budgeting. But, can they give up their partys love affair with deficit spending?

Michael A. Smith is a professor of political science at Emporia State University.

See the original post:
Will anti-Brownback republicans end their party's love affair with deficits? - Hastings Tribune

Republican town halls are erupting with protests as Americans fret over the future of their health insurance. But listen to Lamar Alexander for a few minutes, and you might think not a single bad thing will come of the GOPs plan to rip apart Obamacare and stitch together a replacement.

The folksy Tennessee senator is quietly prevailing upon Republican lawmakers to take a deep breath when it comes to rewriting the health care law that controls a sixth of the American economy. His goal, in a nutshell: to reassure millions of Americans that Republicans arent trying to snatch away their health insurance.

Story Continued Below

His message: As long as were smart and deliberate, it will all be fine. It might take awhile, but we got this.

There are a lot of generals in this administration theyre taught in the war college to think it all the way through, Alexander says. We ought to do that as we try to repair the damage caused by Obamacare. We need to think all the way through to the end.

Tamping down expectations about a quick fix let alone delivering a solution is a monumental task, of course. Its one Alexander is most comfortable leading in private. If theres a softer side to Republicans plans to gut the law, its best represented by Alexander, a lawmaker who so loves cutting a deal that he voluntarily left the top ranks of Republican leadership to better work with Democrats.

A former governor and two-time presidential candidate, Alexander stalks the halls of the Capitol with a small card filled with bullet points about the health care law, pressing it into the hands of Republicans to alert them to the scope of the problems with the nations insurance coverage. Just as he ran for governor by walking across the state in his trademark black-and-red checked flannel shirt, Alexanders goal is to buttonhole enough GOP lawmakers until the whole party is on the same page.

It hasnt been easy. Daily Senate Republican lunches regularly erupt in disagreement over strategy; its now mid-February without a clear path forward, after years of Republican show votes to repeal the law.

Which is fine by Alexander. Republicans came back to Washington in January ready to repeal Obamacare before Inauguration Day. The chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was one of the first lawmakers to call on Republicans not to scrap Obamacare until a replacement is ready to go.

Thats now the GOPs mantra.

What Im trying to do is to make sure that we think carefully, Alexander said. Were moving from a position repeal and replace to governing. Its a little more complicated.

Still, its unclear how the GOP will respond to Alexander's more centrist approach. Conservatives inside and outside Congress have already grown frustrated with the GOPs plodding pace toward repealing the law.

While the knives have not yet been turned on Alexander, its clear the partys right flank is eager to follow through on its years-long vow to deep-six the health care law.

We need to move expeditiously to honor the promises we made to voters, said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). This election in many ways was a referendum on Obamacare.

But in a 30-minute interview with Alexander in his Capitol Hill office packed with artifacts from early settlements in Appalachia, from animal pelts to Sam Houstons walking stick he talks instead about a safe approach. Implementing a replacement in full, he said, could take as long as four years.

Rather than use the GOPs well-worn talking points, he has his own. Democrats and Republicans are fighting like the Hatfields and McCoys, he says, while relying on Obamacare will soon be like having a bus ticket in a town with no buses running.

He doesnt throw out red meat, either, a quality that makes some Democrats open, in theory, to working with Alexander, even though the repeal vote will surely fall along party lines. They like that Alexander tried to be productive during the Obama administration and has carried his pragmatism into the Trump presidency.

Hes one of the most thoughtful members we have, said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).

While they respect Alexanders bipartisan bona fides, Democrats say his rhetoric about building a bridge from Obamacare papers over the reality of stripping health insurance coverage from millions of people.

Alexander is close with both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, which along with his committee chairmanship gives him clout with both parties.

At a time when there is such tension in the chamber, Lamar is one of those people who can disagree with you without being disagreeable, Schumer said.

Still, there are nearly 300 Republicans in Congress who want a piece of the debate, and many are already competing for attention over their own replacement plans.

Alexander doesnt want to go that route. He says he wont even introduce his own bill. Instead he wants to see what Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price propose, then help craft a bill to reconcile the differences.

He also believes Republicans should focus on the biggest problems first. At the top of the list is flagging insurance exchanges, which are suffering from high premiums and low competition, even if they represent just 4 percent of those insured in the United States.

Thats where we need to send in the rescue team, Alexander says.

From there, he wants Republicans to turn to Medicaid expansion which Republicans will keep and potentially even broaden, he says before eventually addressing problems with the countrys patchwork of employer-sponsored health care plans. In essence, Alexander is trying to triangulate an approach that can become law.

One potential hurdle is Alexanders lack of a relationship with President Donald Trump, whom he met for only the second time this month. But he has deep ties with Price and House Speaker Paul Ryan: During the interview, Alexander repeatedly stressed that the three of them are on the same page. Those relationships have given other Republicans confidence in Alexanders role.

Thats the key guy, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Of course, Capitol Hill is a very turf-conscious place. Alexanders committee has jurisdiction over only a small part of health care. The Senate Finance Committee controls the major levers, such as taxes, subsidies and Medicaid. The committees and their staffs have been working together but Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is protective of his jurisdiction.

Sen. Lamar Alexander wants to see what President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price propose, then help craft a bill to reconcile the differences. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

He doesnt have much to do with it, Hatch said of Alexander. He takes a great interest in it, and Im glad he does, and I want to get his best ideas.

Hatch is urging the Congress to quickly repeal Obamacares taxes that fund subsidies for lower-income Americans on the exchanges. But here again Alexander urges caution: If Republicans repeal taxes now, how can they be sure theyll have the revenue needed to pay for their replacement plan?

Most Republicans are going to be reluctant to reduce taxes now and then raise taxes later, he said.

With enough divisions among Republicans to fill a book, the GOP is starting with almost entirely partisan tactics. Alexander and other powerful Republicans want to use budget reconciliation to repeal and replace as much of the law they can on a party-line vote in the Senate, while looking to Price to write regulations to begin changing the law.

Once Republicans have settled their own issues, eventually theyll need the cooperation of Senate Democrats to begin passing new insurance provisions. And the Senate is fraught with tension: Many Democrats are angry at Alexander for helping Trump confirm Betsy DeVos as education secretary, and theres almost no appetite for collaboration on health care.

Alexanders first hearing on the subject degenerated into a series of speeches. Democrats blasted Republicans for taking away peoples insurance. Republicans grandstanded about how bad Obamacare is.

The witnesses were good, but the senators were not that good, Alexander said. Its going to take awhile.

See the rest here:
The stealth Republican force behind Obamacare repeal - Politico

Ken Miller Crunch Network Contributor

Ken Miller is an investor, writer and advisor to several technology companies and venture capital firms. Previously he was an executive at PayPal and Intuit, and early advisor to Square.

Since taking the presidency by surprise back in November, the Republican Party has been salivating on the unexpected opportunity laying before them control of the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Even with the oddly unconventional behavior of the newly elected President Trump for them to juggle, Republicans recognize a mostly unobstructed opportunity to do what they like for at least the next two years.

This situation is a far cry from the 2013 post-election autopsyand self-diagnosis produced by the Party in the aftermath of the 2012 election. The report, a post-mortem designed to identify what had gone wrong in Mitt Romneys 2012 defeat, also served as a prescription for how to recalibrate and move forward. Much of the report focused on needed outreach to women and minorities, immigration reform, and softening language to become a more inclusive and tolerant party.

But that 2013 game plan has since been shoved to the back of the Republican junk drawer. Republicans are celebrating their victory, and sharpening the knives to make good on Trump campaign promises even the really questionable ones.

Lost on the Party during this, however, would seem to be that they are statistically experiencing the ultimate political dead cat bounce.

The term comes from stock markets and refers to a sequence of events where a stock sees a temporary and brief recovery after a severe and prolonged decline, followed by a return to that same decline. The short recovery was really just a mirage as the underlying problems still exist, returning the stock to its initial, inertial freefall.

The key to understanding this phenomenon for the Republican Party is to look at changing U.S. demographics.

Minorities increasingly comprise larger shares of the U.S. population with Hispanics and African-Americans currently making up 17.6% and 13.3 % of the population, respectively. When accounting for all minorities in the U.S., whites now make up just 61.6% of the population.

And that last percentage is shrinking. The U.S. Census Bureau now estimates that by 2044, no race or ethnicity in the U.S. will represent a majority of the populationand that includes whites. This sort of rapidity of a countrys population composition changing seems to be unprecedented.

The impact of this change has certainly been felt in recent elections. Local and state-level elections in regions with significant minority populations have consistently moved Democratic, and there is no real indication to believe this is changing anytime soon. Its also been true at a national level. In this past Novembers Presidential election, Democrats benefited from 89% and 66% of African-American and Latino votes, respectively.

So whats propping up the Republican Party right now, allowing them to sneak in a surprise like Donald Trump against all expectations? The easy (and lazy) answer is that it must be that the 62% of whites are still voting overwhelmingly for Republicans, offsetting these growing demographic changes. Though there is truth to that, digging a bit deeper shows it turns out to be a much more nuanced situation than just that.

Most striking in this is that though whites currently only make up just shy of 62% of the U.S. population, they accounted for 71% of all voters this past November. The takeaway here is that white voters are having a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the election vs. other predominant American races and ethnicities. As a whole, they are clearly taking their civic duty and constitutional privilege very seriously (or suppressing the vote of other ethnicities).

Furthermore, when you look at exit polling data, white voters as an entire group went fairly heavy to the Republican Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton, 57% to 37%. The 20% margin of victory coupled with that extremely high 71% of the overall voting pie, was enough to offset Democrats strong performance among minority voters and narrowly eke out an electoral college win for President Trump. A win largely determined by the unexpected upsets in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Heres where this demographic math gets interesting. One of the single largest segments within the white voter demographic are white evangelical voters. White evangelicals made up close to 37% of all white voters at the polls in Novemberand a striking 26% of total voters.

This is particularly compelling because recent studies have shown that white evangelicals (and even white protestants more broadly) are generally decreasing as a percent of the U.S. population each election cycle (largely driven by the fact that younger generations are less religious, or at least less strident in their religion than older generations). Yet, the 26% of voters this year is consistent with the past couple elections and actually up from levels in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Not only are white evangelical voters incredibly loyal to the Republican Party, but increasingly so. In the 1996 and 2000 elections, white evangelicals broke for Republicans 65% and 68%, respectively. From 2004-2012, that figure was in the mid-to-high 70% range. In 2016, an overwhelming 80% of white evangelicals voted for the Republican Trump.

But at the same time that Republicans are having a very challenging time courting minority voters, it appears they are also struggling with the rest of white America the non-evangelical whites which is clearly much larger in size. In the 2016 election, non-evangelical whites comprised 63% of the total white voteand 45% of the overall vote.and it turns out they broke for the Democrat Clinton by a healthy 6% margin.

White evangelicals have done a tremendous and even historic job of propping up the Republican Party in the face of substantial demographic and ideological shifts in the nation. But implicit in all this data is that Republicans may have finally exhausted the segment thats been most reliably carrying them in recent elections.

Given that the percent of the population that identifies as white evangelical is shrinking, while at the same time the portion that is showing up in the voting booth is increasing, there may not be many more white evangelicals for the Republican Party to lure to the voting booth. Of the estimated 41M that are voter eligible, an estimated 35M voted in 2016 for an astonishing 85% turnout rate.

Democrats are licking their wounds trying to understand themselves what went wrong in 2016 and they need to. Theres a lot to digest and they have their own major issues to address.

Its clear Republicans hitched their wagon to a demographic they have successfully exploited at historic levels the last couple of decades. Yet in doing that theyve still lost six of the last seven popular votes, and as the data shows theyve now pretty much run out of white evangelicals to add to the mix.

And short of a massive religious revival in America that restocks the pond, Republicans run the risk Trumps victory will conceal what they likely figured out four years ago that 2020 and beyond look to be mathematically ugly given Americas changing demographics.

Yet, surprisingly President Trump appears to be doubling down on this exact group that is already saturated and holding them back. At the National Prayer Breakfast meeting in Washington last week, Trump committed to totally destroy the 63-year-old Johnson Amendment, which bars churches from engaging in political activity or risk their tax-exempt status.

With the landmines Republicans are now navigating on a daily basis (thanks to the policies of the current administration), plus their own buzz over a temporary restoration of power, time will tell if they end up neglecting an acutely serious Party inclusion issue that could have real long-term effects.

More here:
Data shows a downward demographic spiral for Republicans - TechCrunch

Congressional Republicans were mostly silent Friday, choosing not to respond to the federal court ruling against President Trumps immigration ban in a move that underscores how the controversial executive order continues to vex the presidents party.

Spokespeople for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) did not respond to requests for comment. Few Republicans issued written statements. Democrats, meanwhile, proactively cheered the courts ruling.

[Federal appeals court rules against Trump travel ban]

The muted response from the GOP contrasted with that of President Trump, who took to Twitter after the ruling was announced Thursday to issue a defiant response in all caps: SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

It also reflected the distance many Republicans have sought from the president over his temporary ban on refugees and foreign nationals from seven majority-Muslim nations. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a stoppage on the orders enforcement.

(Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

A spokeswoman for House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) said he had nothing to add to his previous statement about the executive order, which he said went too far. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) did not immediately comment.

The White House sent talking points to Republicans on Capitol Hill on Thursday evening that framed the ruling as an interim decision that would eventually be overturned.

Once the government is able to present a case on the merits, the courts will undoubtedly rule in the governments favor because the law clearly states that the President has full authority to restrict access in the country by foreign nationals in the interest of national security, said the talking points, which two recipients shared on the condition of anonymity.

Those Republicans who did speak out on Friday were generally critical of the courts decision.

Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), a Trump ally, said in an interview that he, like the president, was not happy with the courts ruling.

I cant speak to why other Republicans may not be speaking out, but I certainly relish the opportunity to make sure people know where I stand on this, said Collins. He said he believes that the vast majority of his constituents support Trumps executive order.

It seems to me very biased on the liberal side of things, remarked Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) in an interview. Cole argued that the court should have afforded the president more latitude in implementing his policies. The administration has argued that in enforcing the order, it was acting to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks.

You can disagree with the policy, but the real question here is, Does he have the authority to pursue the policy? Cole asked.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), a former 9th Circuit law clerk, sounded a similar note.

The idea that theres no threats out there and that the executive branch doesnt have the exclusive ability to determine what those are is, from my perspective ... its a pretty bold assertion by a court, said Sullivan, who noted that he had not yet read the full court opinion.

Trump issued the order two weeks ago after virtually no consultation with congressional Republicans, angering many GOP leaders on Capitol Hill who were caught off guard by the ensuing uproar.

[Angry Republicans lash out at Trump for not consulting them on travel ban]

The administration could now seek to have the Supreme Court consider its case. Or, it could retool its order, as many Republicans have suggested over the past two weeks.

There is this option which is withdraw the current order, tighten it, make sure it gets the vetting it needs from not only Homeland Security, but Office of Legal Counsel and everybody else and reissue it, right? said Sullivan. So, that, to me, might be a course worth taking.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor, said the Supreme Court will now have to determine what process is due, if any to legal residents and other noncitizens.

It seems clear to most of us not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals there is no right to come to this country for non-citizens of the United States, Gowdy said in a written statement, in which he concluded: For those, like Alexander Hamilton, who once or now wondered if the Judicial Branch would be too weak. Wonder no more.

The Supreme Court currently has only eight justices. The Senate is engaged in a heated fight over Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trumps nominee to fill the ninth seat. Many Democrats have voiced heavy skepticism about his record and whether he will be able to have enough independence from Trump.

You cant just assert, Im an independent person, which he did. You have to show examples. I await them, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor this week.

After quickly applauding the 9th Circuit Courts ruling on Thursday night, Democrats continued praising it on Friday.

Liberty & justice also prevailed last night, proving our system of checks & balances cannot be shaken, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter, adding the hashtag #MuslimBan.

Cole said he believed that the many Republicans who did not weigh in were simply opting to act in a way that respects the process the judiciary goes through with major cases.

In the past, however, such as when the Supreme Court upheld a key part of the Affordable Care Act during Barack Obamas presidency, Republicans have not held back from expressing their opinions on major decisions.

Todays ruling is deeply disappointing, said Ryan, then-House Ways and Means Committee chairman, in a statement at the time.

Robert Costa contributed to this report.

Read more at PowerPost

Read the original here:
Republicans tight-lipped on court decision against Trump's travel ban - Washington Post

Missouri state Sen. Gary Romine, sponsor of a bill that seeks to make it harder to sue businesses for racial discrimination, says the measure will improve Missouris legal climate.

It also could improve Romines personal legal climate, making it less likely that his rent-to-own furniture business will face any more racial discrimination lawsuits like the one it has been embroiled in for almost two years.

Romine, R-Farmington, isnt the only lawmaker in Jefferson City who is trying to change the law to protect businesses from lawsuits in ways that could theoretically protect his own bottom line as well.

Another Republican senator, who is a veterinarian, is sponsoring legislation to put new limits on malpractice suits against veterinarians. And the Senates top Republican is trying to change a state consumer-protection law that is currently being used to sue one of his biggest campaign contributors.

The proposals are in keeping with the promise Missouri Republicans have been making for years: to rein in what they allege is an out-of-control civil litigation system that hurts the states business landscape. With the new Republican control of virtually every lever of state government that went into effect last month, it was a foregone conclusion that bills of this type would start moving through the Legislature.

Still, the pace of it has surprised even statehouse veterans.

This has been one of the most ambitious agendas weve ever seen to limit access to the courts, said Sen. Scott Sifton, D-Affton. Like many other Democrats, he argues that such limits can infringe on the rights of injured plaintiffs who have legitimate complaints against businesses.

And the appearance of conflict of interest in at least some of the bills is absolutely concerning, says Jay Benson, president of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, a group that frequently donates to and supports Democrats.

This is all being presented with the suggestion that our tort system is bad for business. Its not bad for business; its bad for bad business, said Benson, who calls the proliferation of such bills an epidemic. The civil justice system is designed to hold people accountable when they do bad things.

Republicans and pro-business groups counter that what they call frivolous lawsuits create costs not just to individual defendants but to Missouris entire business climate.

My office has already received an exceptionally good response from members of the business community to the bill putting new restrictions on lawsuits alleging discrimination by businesses, Romine wrote in an online column recently. It will go a long way toward reforming Missouris legal climate and improving our ability to grow existing businesses and attract new employers.

Lawmakers particularly in part-time, term-limited systems like Missouris are expected to bring their private-sector experience and perspective to their lawmaking. There is no one more qualified to write agricultural laws than a farmer, goes the thinking, or to write medical laws than a doctor, and so forth.

"I'm the person pursuing the legislation because I have first-hand experience with the situation," Romine said in an interview Saturday. As for an concerns that such legislation looks like self-dealing, Romine noted,"I have 33 other senators who have to consider it."

But others saywhen a business owner writes laws addressing conflicts between business owners and their employees, it inevitably raises the question of whether the employees are getting fair representation.

This kind of legislation just adds to the perception that legislators are benefiting themselves and using government to do it, said Dave Robertson, political scientist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Its fair to be concerned about the tort system, but the very specific benefits connected to the individual lawmakers really add the perception of corruption.

Romine owns the Show-Me Rent-to-Own chain of furniture stores in southeast Missouri. A Scott County lawsuit, filed in 2015 and still pending according to records, alleges that a supervisor at the chains Sikeston store routinely used racial epithets against a black account manager.

The account managers suit claims the supervisor also circled an African-American neighborhood on a wall map in the store with the notation Do not rent to written on it. The suit further claims that the account managers complaints about the supervisor went up the chain to Romine, but that he declined to take any action. (A defense filing in the suit denies that and all the other allegations.)

The account manager was later fired, on what the suit alleges was the pre-textual reason of using profanity. White employees routinely use profanity in Defendants workplace and are not disciplined, alleges the suit. It specifically claims that Plaintiffs race was a contributing factor to the account managers termination.

That last line is crucial because court precedent in Missouri says a fired employee can invoke the states anti-discrimination laws if discrimination was a contributing factor in the firing, even if it wasnt the only factor.

Thats one thing that Romines legislation, Senate Bill 43, would specifically change: to win a discrimination case, the plaintiff would have to show that discrimination was the primary cause of his firing, and not just a contributing factor.

It would also make it more difficult for plaintiffs to appeal their complaints into the civil court system if the Missouri Commission on Human Rights finds for the employer.

In his recent column, Romine notes his frustrating experiences with the current discrimination law. On three different occasions, I have had to go before the (Missouri Commission on Human Rights) as a business owner. In each instance, they determined the employees case had no merit, he wrote.

But in each case, he added, the plaintiff was allowed to sue in the court system, which opened the case up all over again.

In its current form, this system encourages individuals to pursue a meritless case simply to force a settlement, costing our small businesses time and money they do not have, Romine wrote. In an interview Saturday, Romine said the Scott County case is "a prime example of what needs to get fixed" in the system.

Sen. Dan Brown, R-Rolla, who has practiced veterinary medicine for more than 40 years, wants to place a two-year statute of limitations on malpractice or negligence actions against veterinarians.

His legislation, Senate Bill 88, would add vets like himself to the list of providers subject to the statute, including doctors, optometrists and other providers who treat human subjects.

Brown couldnt be reached for comment Friday.

Last week, Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard had to field questions about whether his legislation to put new limits on use of the states consumer-protection law is designed to help out one of his largest campaign contributors: the Humphreys family of Joplin, which has given Richard almost $300,000.

David Humphreys is CEO of TAMKO Building Products Inc., which is facing a class-action lawsuit over allegedly defective roofing shingles it sold. The company is being sued under Missouris Merchandising Practices Act, the consumer-protection law that Richard seeks to change with his bill.

Richards legislation, Senate Bill 5, would, among other things, impose new requirements on people joining class-action lawsuits of the kind being pursued against TAMKO.

Critics, including the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, say the measure would effectively prohibit consumer-protection class-action suits under the statute. Richard told reporters last week that sounds like a great idea, but denied his bill has anything to do with protecting the Humphreys business from future litigation.

Kurt Erickson and Stephen Deere of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

Be informed. Get our free political newsletter featuring local and national updates and analysis.

See the rest here:
Missouri Republicans' push to limit lawsuits could have unexpected beneficiaries: themselves - STLtoday.com