Timing of Jasper County landfill push is suspicious

Craig Post and his Springfield-based Advantage Waste company want to open the long-delayed Southwest Regional Landfill in Jasper County and Post's approach in his efforts to do so has been praised by the Joplin Globe's editorial writers.
"While the residents have valid concerns, Advantage Waste appears to be taking the correct approach to its idea of reviving the landfill," the Globe editorial board said in the Dec. 28 edition.
"We applaud Post and Advantage Waste for their openness," the editorial said.
It is a fortunate thing the Globe hedged its support of Post with the word "appears," for U. S. District Court records, and records filed with the Missouri secretary of state's office indicate there is some information that Post has not told area residents, including members of Citizens for Environmental Safety, the group which thus far has successfully fought the battle to keep a landfill out of their backyard.
The documents indicate the timing, not only of the latest efforts to open the landfill, but also of the creation of Advantage Waste, is suspicious and that Advantage Waste and the Southwest Regional Landfill have been connected for more than five years.
Lawsuit alleges Advantage Waste owes nearly half a million
In a lawsuit filed June 1 in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, American Disposal Services of the Ozarks and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., claim Advantage Waste, Post, and two other companies owned by Post, CHP Investments, Inc., and CHP Environmental, Inc., owe them nearly half a million dollars and they are suing Post for breach of contract.
Court records indicate Post and his companies entered into a contract with American Disposal and BFI Sept. 29, 2000. "In exchange for the payments to plaintiffs," the records say, "CHP investments and its affiliates were able to dispose of up to 700 tons per day of certain waste at plaintiffs' landfills and transfer stations.'
The disposal began almost immediately after the papers were signed, but the lawsuit alleges Post and his three companies owe $463,857.65. American Disposal and BFI are seeking that amount, interest, attorneys' fees, court costs, and any other fees the court deems reasonable.
The same charges are leveled against Post and his companies on three counts: breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment. The same amount of money is mentioned in each count.
Companies may be headed toward settlement
American Disposal's lawsuit against Craig Post and Advantage Waste may never come to trial. Documents filed Dec. 22 in U. S. District Court indicate both sides have asked that court action in the lawsuit be put on hold due to "ongoing settlement efforts."
"On or about Nov. 30, 2004, plaintiff American Disposal Services of Missouri, Inc., and defendant CHP Investments, Inc., among other parties, entered into an agreement regarding certain transactions between the parties. The closing date of the proposed transactions is currently contemplated to be Dec. 30, 2005. This agreement provides that the debt which is at issue in this case will be paid by mid-February 2006." If the deal works out, the documents indicate, the lawsuit will be dismissed.
Documents indicate Jasper County landfill at center of deal
While the timing of Mr. Post's recent push to open the Jasper County landfill and the announcement of settlement talks with American Disposal and BFI is highly suspect, the two companies' connection with the Southwest Regional Landfill appears to date back at least five years.
In fact, the agreement may have started with the July 20, 1999, court order which required Allied Waste Industries Inc., to divest itself of certain properties and businesses, including its option on the Southwest Regional Landfill, as part of its purchase of Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). That order was issued to prevent Allied from establishing a waste disposal monopoly.
The court's disposal order included the following:
-"Allied's option to purchase the proposed Southwest Regional Landfill."
-"Allied's Tate Transfer Station, located at Route 2, Box 69, Verona, MO 65769. Relevant hauling assets, unless otherwise noted, means with respect to each commercial waste collection route or other hauling asset described herein, all tangible assets, including capital equipment, trucks and other vehicles, containers, interests, permits, supplies, real property, and improvements to real property (i.e. buildings and garages), and it includes all intangible assets, including hauling-related customer lists, contracts, leasehold interests, and accounts."
-"Allied's commercial routes that serve the city of Springfield and Greene and Christian counties," including municipal solid waste and "the business of disposing of waste into approved disposal sites."
Documents from U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia indicate that the final modification to the agreement was made on Aug. 9, 2000. Two days later, Advantage Waste and CHP Investments, Inc., registered with the Missouri Secretary of State's office. The registered agent for Advantage was Craig H. Post, while his father, Cornelius H. Post, was the registered agent for CHP Investments.
Agreement between Advantage, American Disposal hinged on Jasper County landfill
The connection between Advantage Waste and the Southwest Regional Landfill dates back five and a half years, according to an exhibit filed in the lawsuit against Advantage Waste.
According to the exhibit, on June 9, 2000, American Disposal and CHP entered into an agreement for CHP to take over Allied's trash routes in the Springfield area. The agreement "shall commence as of the effective date or three months following the date the Southwest Regional Landfill located at Missouri State Highway M, Township 30N, Range 32 West, Section 34, in Jasper County, Missouri, is opened. If the Southwest Regional Landfill is not opened by the fourth anniversary of the effective date, CHP shall have the option to extend this agreement for up to six additional one-year terms for a total term of 10 years if all options are exercised, provided however, any then current renewal term and all subsequent options shall terminate three months after the opening of the Southwest Regional Landfill."
The contract was entered into on Sept. 29, 2000, according to court documents. The four years ended on Sept. 29, 2004, and the lawsuit was filed about eight months later.
It would appear that the Southwest Regional Landfill has been a key factor in the existence of Advantage Waste for the entire five years since it registered in the state.
Advantage registrations coincide with announcement of possible settlement
The final indication that a more thorough examination of Advantage Waste and CHP Investments might be wise comes from the timing of the court filing of a possible settlement in American Disposal's lawsuit against Advantage and CHP.
The court documents were filed Dec. 22...the same day that a limited liability company, Advantage Waste LLC was registered with the Missouri Secretary of State's office. The registered agent was CT Corporation System, Clayton, MO., a company specializing in corporate filings which does the filing for hundreds of companies that do business in the state. One day earlier, Craig H. Post filed registration papers for Advantage Waste Service, Inc., a company owned wholly by AWS Holdings, Springfield, with Post serving as president.
Before anything is decided, state officials should get a better idea of just who it is that is actually behind the plan to open the Southwest Regional Landfill.

Documents cloud Advantage Waste issue

In a post earlier today, it was noted that Advantage Waste, the company that is wanting to buy and operate the Southwest Regional Landfill in the Purcell area of Jasper County apparently did not exist prior to the federal court order that Allied Waste divest itself of the Southwest Regional Landfill as part of the antitrust settlement that allowed it to buy Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI).
Documents uncovered by The Turner Report indicate that Craig H. Post, owner of Advantage Waste, worked for Allied Waste after the court order, and that Advantage Waste and CHP Environmental were only registered with the Missouri secretary of state's office shortly after the court-ordered settlement was finalized.
The settlement ordered Allied to divest itself of "Tate's Transfer station, located at Route 2, Box 69, Verona," including "relevant hauling assets," including "all tangible assets, including capital equipment, trucks, and other vehicles, containers, interests, permits, supplies, real property and improvements to real property, and it includes all intangible assets, including hauling-related customer lists, contracts, leasehold interests, and accounts."
Another portion of the settlement requires Allied to get rid of its commercial routes serving the city of Springfield and Greene and Christian counties, including "the collection of waste from customers and the shipment of the collected waste to disposal sites," plus "municipal solid waste," and "the business of disposing waste into approved disposal sites."
The disposal agreement signed between American Disposal Services of Kansas and BFI, both subsidiaries of Allied, and Craig H. Post, Advantage Waste owner, says "Tate's Transfer Systems, Inc., an affiliate of Allied, and CHP are parties to that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 9, 2000, which provides for the purchase by CHP of certain assets and hauling routes in and around Springfield, Missouri, owned by Allied."
However, a financial statement filed June 19, 2001, with Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt shows Tate's Transfer System and Craig H. Post taking out a loan with Case Credit Corporation of Racine, Wis., signed by Post, with the address for both Post and the business listed as 1688 Farm Road 65, Springfield, MO.
Documents on file with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources list Post's company, CHP Environmental, Inc., "formerly known as Tate's Transfer."
If Tate's Transfer and CHP Environmental are the same, which would seem to be the indication given by the documents at the secretary of state and MDNR offices, then the company appears to be still connected with Allied Waste.
On June 29, 2005, Allied filed a list of its subsidiaries with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. The list included both Tate's Transfer and the Southwest Regional Landfill.
As mentioned in the earlier post, the wording of the contract between Advantage Waste/CHP and Allied seemed to hinge on the opening of the Southwest Regional Landfill and that the lawsuit was put on hold at about the same time that Post started his efforts to buy the landfill.

Dismissal of Advantage Waste lawsuit sought

Sure as clockwork, Advantage Waste completes its purchase of the Southwest Regional Landfill in Jasper County and a lawsuit filed against it by American Disposal, BFI and Allied Waste appears to be on the verge of being dismissed.
The connection between the Jasper County landfill and this lawsuit were previously explored in two Jan. 8 posts.
In documents filed today in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Douglas M. Weems, attorney for American Disposal and BFI (BFI is an affiliate of Allied), asked for the case to be dismissed with prejudice with the costs assessed to the plaintiffs.
In the lawsuit filed June 1, 2005, American Disposal Services of the Ozarks and BFI claimed Advantage Waste, its owner Craig H. Post, and two other companies owned by Post, CHP Investments, Inc., and CHP Environmental, Inc., owed them nearly half a million dollars. They sued Post for breach of contract.
Court records indicate Post and his companies entered into a contract with American Disposal and BFI Sept. 29, 2000. "In exchange for the payments to plaintiffs," the records say, "CHP investments and its affiliates were able to dispose of up to 700 tons per day of certain waste at plaintiffs' landfills and transfer stations.'
The disposal began almost immediately after the papers were signed, but the lawsuit alleges Post and his three companies owe $463,857.65. American Disposal and BFI sought that amount, interest,and fees.
Documents filed Dec. 22 indicated both sides asked that court action in the lawsuit be put on hold due to "ongoing settlement efforts."
"On or about Nov. 30, 2004, plaintiff American Disposal Services of Missouri, Inc., and defendant CHP Investments, Inc., among other parties, entered into an agreement regarding certain transactions between the parties. The closing date of the proposed transactions is currently contemplated to be Dec. 30, 2005. This agreement provides that the debt which is at issue in this case will be paid by mid-February 2006." If the deal works out, the documents indicated, the lawsuit would be dismissed.
As noted in the earlier Turner Report posts, the entire deal seemed to coincide with the renewed interest in and eventual purchase of the Southwest Regional Landfill by Advantage Waste.

Judge in Advantage Waste case grants stay

Judge James C. England has granted a request to stay all deadlines in a lawsuit filed by American Disposal Services of the Ozarks and BFI against Advantage Waste, the company that wants to buy and operate the Southwest Regional Landfill in Jasper County.
According to documents filed Jan. 10 in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, since the issue may be settled by mid-February, "thus allowing for a motion to dismiss to be filed in the case," the stay was granted.
As revealed in the Jan.8 Turner Report, it appears that the settlement in this case has everything to do with whether Advantage Waste can get a quick approval to open the landfill since that stipulation was made in the original contract between Advantage, its owner Craig H. Post, and his company, CHP Environmental. The plaintiffs in the case say that Post and his companies owe them $463,857.65, but indicate that negotiations for a settlement began at nearly the same time as officials from Post's company began contacting Jasper County residents about the possibility of buying and running the landfill.
As noted earlier in this blog, the whole situation appears to have started with the July 20, 1999, federal court order requiring Allied Waste (owner of BFI) to divest itself of certain properties, including its option on the Southwest Regional Landfill, as part of its purchase of BFI.
Allied's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicate the company still owns the landfill property, but cannot legally operate it without violating the court order.
Incorporation documents filed with the Missouri Secretary of State's office indicate Post's companies were created shortly after the final ruling was issued in the antitrust case.
The Turner Report investigation into Advantage Waste can be found at the following links:
Jan. 8 Turner Report
Second Turner Report Jan. 8 entry

More use of documents would have helped landfill article

Joplin Globe reporter Susan Redden's article on the proposed opening of the Southwest Regional Landfill in Jasper County could have used more documentation.
The story of Advantage Waste's efforts to gain state approval to open the facility is one that benefits greatly from the use of documents from various state and federal agencies as I showed earlier this month in two posts on the subject.
I pointed out that the timing of Advantage's push was somewhat suspicious and noted, as Ms. Redden did, the lawsuit filed by Allied Waste against Advantage in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Using loan and incorporation documents from the Missouri secretary of state's office, as well as filings with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, the Turner Report showed stronger connections than originally indicated between Allied Waste and Advantage owner Craig H. Post.
Post's company, as I pointed out, did not exist until after a federal court ordered Allied Waste to divest itself of Springfield trash routes and the Southwest Regional Landfill as part of an an antitrust action filed after Allied agreed to buy BFI. Post confirmed that to Ms. Redden, but said it was approved by the Department of Justice. That may very well be so, but I would love to hear that from someone with the Department of Justice, especially since an Allied filing with the SEC last year indicates the company still owns the company that is now CHP Environmental, also owned by Post and his father, and also still lists the Southwest Regional Landfill as one of its possessions.
Documents do not always tell the entire truth, but when the environment is at stake, it pays to take every possible precaution before taking such a momentous step as permitting a company to own and operate a landfill.
Links to the earlier Turner Report posts on this subject are listed below:
Documents cloud Advantage Waste issue
Timing of Jasper County landfill push is suspicious

Attorney general examining connection between Allied, Advantage

The Turner Report has learned state officials are examining the connection between Allied Waste, the company that owns the Southwest Regional Landfill in Jasper County, and Advantage Waste the company that wants to buy it and operate it.
State investigators have examined information printed last month in this blog, which indicates that Allied, if not violating the antitrust order issued by a federal court, could be violating the spirit of that order.
More information about the connections between Allied and Advantage can be found at:
Documents cloud Advantage Waste issue and
Timing of Jasper County landfill push is suspicious

Joplin Globe apologists missing the point

It is always a lot of fun to rile the people at the Joplin Globe, but judging from some of the comments that have been left on this blog over the past 24 hours, I question the understanding a few of them have of journalism in general and blogs in particular.
At least two took potshots at a small item I posted late last night about Clarksdale, Tenn., mulling over a Global Entertainment proposal. This was one of four articles I either quoted or posted links to from other newspapers, something which is generally done by blogs. At least one of the cheap shot artists who commented said it was one of the rare occasions on which I gave credit to my source. It is even more rare that I do not give credit to my sources.
I am fully aware that the Globe has done extensive coverage of Global Entertainment and Clarksdale, Tenn. What in the world does that have to do with posting an item about a story that appears in a Tennessee newspaper about something that is of interest to Joplin readers?
Another person talks about how there is no original reporting in this blog. I will grant you that much of this blog is not original reporting. Some of it is commentary, some of it is items taken from other media (with attribution and more often that not, with links), some of it is musings about the state of journalism in this area.
But anyone who says there is no original reporting in this blog needs a few lessons on what original reporting is. I don't even have to go back into the archives to come up with a few examples, most of them based on my combing over public documents:
-The connections between Advantage Waste, CHP Environmental and Allied Waste and the lawsuit filed against Advantage Waste, the company that is wanting to operate the Southwest Regional Landfill in Jasper County.
-A whole string of stories over the past 18 months or so about the problems of O'Sullivan Industries in Lamar (and before anyone starts raking me over the coals about it, yes, both the Lamar Democrat and KODE beat me to the story about a bankruptcy court judge's decision in favor of O'Sullivan concerning the city of Lamar's request for help with the company's utility payments.)
-Thorough examinations of area and statewide legislators and the campaign finance money and lobbyists' gifts they have received. With the Jack Abramoff scandal and everything that is going on in Washington, I would have thought this story would have become a priority for our area newspapers, but except for a one-shot by the Globe last summer, it has been woefully neglected- and it is a very serious problem.
-And, of course, the article that set off this most recent baying of Joplin Globe wolves, the $12.5 million settlement reached with a New York widow over the death of her husband in a RegionsAir (formerly Corporate Airlines) crash.
There are dozens and dozens of further examples.
When the Joplin Globe people initially picked up on this blog months ago, reporters picked up a number of ideas from it and ran with them. John Hacker, who was with the Globe at that time, took the information and came up with more on his own, doing it the old-fashioned way, he got on the phone and made calls and he actually checked out the original source documents. I can recall a story or two that Andy Ostmeyer did on the O'Sullivan situation, in which he, too, checked the source documents, then came up with further information on his own. The television stations in the area, the Neosho Daily News, and The Carthage Press have done the same thing. I have no problems with any of these, nor should I. That is the way it should be done.
That was not the way it was done in the Globe story on the air crash settlement yesterday. I did not get the idea that the reporter examined the documents from the U. S. District Courts in Texas, New York, and Missouri that I did; I did not get the feeling that he had looked over the National Transportation Safety Board's report on the crash as I did. I had the feeling that all of his research came from two sources, the Associated Press and The Turner Report. Only one of those sources was credited, the Associated Press. The lead of the story was about the settlement. As of last night, I could still find only two media sources for the settlement story...The Turner Report and The Joplin Globe. The apologists immediately began screaming about how unfair I was being and how bigheaded I was being for having the audacity to accuse the Globe of stealing a story. I might not have even mentioned it, except a few weeks back, a Globe reporter wrote two stories, both of which ran in the same edition (it was a different reporter, by the way), that appeared to follow the same formula. The story first appeared in this blog, then appeared in the Globe with no further original reporting and no facts in it that were different from those I ran initially.
There is nothing illegal about what the Globe has done. It is not plagiarism. Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is a question of ethics. It appears to me that the Globe apologists are trying to avoid the central problem by dragging in extraneous issues.
The fact that I have an ego, which I will readily admit, has nothing to do whatsoever with the Globe's recent transgressions. Worry more about your reporting and less about mine and maybe the Globe can get back to the stature it once had in this area.

Southwest Regional Landfill will not be built

Land which was supposed to have been used to create the Southwest Regional Landfill has been sold...and one of the conditions requires that the land never be used for a landfill.

The announcement is supposed to be made by Jasper County Commissioners during a press conference Tuesday.

Commissioners relayed the information to members of Citizens for Environmental Safety, the group which has opposed the landfill for nearly two decades.

Though the news is good for those who have been fighting the proposed landfill, an air of mystery surrounds the sale and the ownership of the property.

Republic Services, Inc., which merged with Allied Waste on Dec. 5, 2008, is the reported buyer of the property, yet as The Turner Report noted during a 2006 investigation, it appeared at that time that Allied already owned the property using a shell company, Advantage Waste.

It should also be noted that Southwest Regional Landfill was dissolved by the Missouri Secretary of State's office in 2008, but was reinstated Aug. 27. In the last annual report, dated Oct. 28, 2008, both the vice president, Charles Singleton, who signed the document, and the secretary, Christopher Smith, were from Aurora, Colo., probably not so coincidentally, the home of Allied Waste and Republic Services, Inc.

McCaskill: New role will help protect tax dollars from waste

In her latest newsletter, Sen. Claire McCaskill writes about the good things she will be able to do as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight. As the new Congress gets underway, I'm excited to tell you about two new leadership roles I'm taking on that will allow me to better protect taxpayer dollars from waste, and look out for Missouri's families and businesses. I came to the Senate as a former prosecutor and auditor, and with an eye for rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. It was that watchful eye I used when I began chairing the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight back in 2009.  Now I'll have the opportunity to take my work government-wide as the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight. This new subcommittee will allow me the opportunity to dramatically expand my oversight role by taking a closer look at spending at every federal agency and department. It will also provide me with more investigative resources, which I'll use to hold hearings that get to the root of government mismanagement and taxpayer abuses. During my time as chairman of the former Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, I chaired more than 20 hearings and launched more than 40 investigations at 22 federal departments and agencies - resulting in nearly 30 instances of misconduct referred to federal investigators. I'll take that same dedication with me to my new subcommittees. In addition to my expanded oversight role, I'll also have a greater role in directly looking out for Missouri consumers as I take on my second new leadership position. I'll begin chairing a Senate subcommittee devoted to protecting consumers from predatory practices and harmful products. Part of the Senate Commerce Committee, on which I have served since joining the Senate, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, has broad authority. As Chairman, I'll be making sure businesses are not unlawfully taking advantage of consumers, that commonsense rules are in place to protect Missourians from predatory practices and that those businesses violating consumers' privacy or rights are held to account. Chairing these two subcommittees provides me the opportunity to continue pursuing real change to the manner in which the federal government does business while expanding my work to protect Missourians from predatory practices. I look forward to sharing news of my work with you.

Missouri Legislature ends 2022 session marked by gridlock, GOP infighting

By Jason Hancock and Tessa Weinberg

Missouri Independent

A flurry of activity in the Missouri House on Friday kept 2022 from earning the ignominious distinction of least productive legislative session in modern history.

With GOP infighting in the Senate forcing it to adjourn a day early after a session that’s seen it mired in gridlock, the House returned Friday morning to pass 20 bills over the course of almost six hours.

(Photo- Members of the Missouri House throw sheets of paper into the air to celebrate the end of the legislative session on May 13, 2022- Jason Hancock/Missouri Independent)

When the final gavel fell around 4 p.m. and the session officially ended, 43 non-budget bills had found their way to the governor’s desk. Since 1981, the fewest number of bills to clear the General Assembly was 31 during the pandemic-shortened session of 2020.

The average number of bills passed each year over that time is 155.

Yet while the list of achievements may be short, it still includes major pieces of legislation — including some that have been a GOP priority for years.

If signed by Gov. Mike Parson: Millions in new funding would be directed to charter schools in St. Louis and Kansas City.
New protections would be created for property owners hoping to fend off use of eminent domain by private companies.
Voters will be required to show a photo ID in order to cast a ballot.
Hospitals and nursing homes would be limited in implementing the type of visitor restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Schools will be required to test and filter drinking water to prevent lead poisoning.

Lawmakers also approved the largest budget in the state’s history — fattened up with billions of federal COVID relief funding — that included big increases for public schools and universities, nearly $1 billion to increase payments to medical and personal care providers and a $500 million plan for tax rebates.

The budget also included language seeking to bar taxpayer funds from going to Planned Parenthood, a long-time goal of the anti-abortion movement.

Despite months of stalled attempts to redraw the state’s congressional maps — with the Senate’s conservative caucus and GOP leadership often in active war with each other — the Senate finally managed to finish its work on redistricting.

“I’m proud of my colleagues for achieving many accomplishments this year, in spite of the amount of attempted obstruction,” said Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz, R-Sullivan.

Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, D-Independence, pointed to the budget as the session’s major accomplishment, specifically noting money to raise teacher pay.

“It was a good year for Democrats,” Rizzo said. “It was a good year for the people of the state of Missouri.”

Gridlock in the Senate gummed up the works and created a legislative bottleneck in the upper chamber that doomed a litany of bills.

Among the highest-profile casualties include efforts to block transgender students from participating on sports teams that match their gender identity, legislation that would have legalized sports wagering and changes to make it harder to amend the state constitution through the initiative petition process.

Republicans also fell short in efforts to ban vaccine mandates by private businesses as well as prohibit mask requirements in schools.

“We could have done a lot better,” said Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake St. Louis, whose fellow members of the Senate conservative caucus regularly derailed the chamber this year with filibusters and procedural maneuvers.

With the House working to get bills across the finish line Friday, the Senate’s early adjournment rubbed some the wrong way.

“I was disappointed that they adjourned, and I think all of my colleagues are disappointed that they adjourned,” said House Speaker Rob Vescovo, R-Arnold. “But let’s be frank with each other. They haven’t been working in cohesion with each other all session. So who would have said they would have accomplished anything in the last 24 hours anyway, with all the fighting amongst each other.”

House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, said her party had lots of success stopping what it considers bad bills. But that’s not what she hopes voters take away from the last five months of legislative work.

“The inescapable message of the 2022 legislative session is this,” Quade said. “The guys running this place have no idea how to govern.”

Education

Some of the highest profile legislative wins were focused on education.

A years-long effort by charter school proponents to obtain more funds for their students finally paid off this year. Lawmakers agreed to a compromise bill that could pump millions into charter schools through a change in the foundation formula, the basic state aid program for school districts.

The change is estimated to cost between $62 million and $74 million in fiscal year 2023, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill.

Another bill could drastically cut down on the amount of lead in school drinking water.

The state currently doesn’t require schools to test their water, and only a few have taken advantage of grants to do so voluntarily. But this week, legislation that would require school administrators to test drinking water for lead and take action under standards more protective than federal regulations was passed and sent to the governor.

A push for statewide open enrollment legislation fizzled, but lawmakers did pass a much more narrowly-tailored version focused exclusively on people who own multiple properties in different school districts.

Another bill on the governor’s desk seeks to improve childhood literacy by requiring schools to start assessing students on their reading levels in kindergarten and ensure students who are behind receive additional support.

Long-term GOP goals

Republicans overcame fierce Democratic opposition in order to once again pass a photo ID requirement to vote.

The idea has been a priority of the GOP in Missouri for more than a decade, but each time they successfully approved voter ID legislation it was thrown out by the courts.

This year, Senate Democrats agreed to end a filibuster and allow the bill to come up for a vote after Republicans agreed to include an amendment creating a two-week window for no-excuse absentee voting.

The GOP and farm groups celebrated passage of eminent domain legislation that they framed as protections for private property rights.

Inspired by a 4,000 megawatt transmission line expected to run clean energy across Missouri, the bill adds more protections for Missourians when companies condemn land to build transmission lines.

Lawmakers also passed a “Sexual Assault Survivors Bill of Rights,” laying out protections for survivors such as making it inadmissible for a victim’s previous sexual history to be used during a trial and establishing procedures for medical care.

COVID, prison nurseries, hazardous waste

On Friday, the Missouri House unanimously approved legislation requiring health care facilities to permit at least two visitors to be able to see a patient in-person during visiting hours.

The change was inspired by visitor restrictions enacted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic by hospitals and nursing homes. Under the legislation, facilities would still be permitted to impose certain restrictions, like if a visitor is showing symptoms of an infection or while emergency care is being administered.

Another bill that found its way to the governor’s desk Friday would permit the Missouri Department of Corrections to establish a nursery within a women’s correctional facility, allowing children born to incarcerated women to stay with their mothers behind bars for up to 18 months.

Supporters of the proposal have pointed to the impact of similar programs in other states on reducing recidivism rates.

Lawmakers also passed a bill weakening Missouri’s hazardous waste regulations.

The legislation approved Friday would bar Missouri from enacting hazardous waste rules that are any stricter than federal regulation. It would also allow advanced — or chemical — recycling facilities to operate without a solid waste permit.

Critics argue the two policies will leave Missourians more vulnerable to being exposed to dangerous chemicals.

Engler: Missouri Presidential Primary was a waste of money

In his latest report, Rep. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, says last Tuesday's Missouri presidential primary was a waste of money.

Last year, I fully supported the bill moving Missouri’s primary to early February. By switching to an earlier date, we could have given Missourians a greater say in selecting the presidential candidate. The national political parties, however, try to keep a specific order of states’ primaries and caucuses, and our date change threw a wrench in their plans. We were informed if we didn’t move our primary, we risked losing delegates.

Before the Legislature could act, the state Republican Party chose to switch to a caucus system in March to select the presidential candidate, rendering our new, early primary pointless. I filed a bill to cancel the primary since it would not choose Missouri's presidential candidate, and we risked spending $7 million on an election that no longer mattered. For reasons that are dubious, in my opinion, the bill died in the Senate.

On Tuesday, Missouri citizens cast their votes in a primary election that was little more than a state funded political poll. At a time when we’re cutting funds from higher education, laying off 3,000 state workers and implementing drastic cost-saving measures throughout departments, we spent $7 million on a primary election that accomplished absolutely nothing. Voters must have felt similarly, because only around 8 percent of the population took part in the election. Broken down, that’s about $25 spent per vote.

I am disgusted by this entire situation. When it became apparent the primary wasn’t going to have any say in selecting the presidential candidate, we should have passed legislation to cancel it. Keeping the primary was one of the dumbest things I’ve seen the Legislature do.

This week the Missouri Senate gave final approval to Senate Bill 592, which would modify state law relating to the Missouri Human Rights Act and employment discrimination. The bill will now go to the House for approval. We’ve continued to work on this legislation, and a new willingness to compromise has given its passage more promise. If we can continue to find middle ground, I’m hopeful we can get this bill to the governor’s desk.

We’re often accused of monkeying around in the Capitol, but that charge took on new meaning this week. The Senate Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources Committee considered Senate Bill 666 on Wednesday. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Joe Keaveny, D-St. Louis, would require a permit issued by the Missouri Department of Agriculture to own a large, non-human primate, and establishes other guidelines dictating who can own one of these animals.

I was honestly surprised by the number of exotic animal owners not only in my district, but across the state. However, ownership of these animals should have reasonable regulations. If one were to get loose, it could pose a significant danger to the public. The committee engaged in some interesting discussion about the bill and its merits, and thankfully, no one went ape.

The Jobs, Economic Development and Local Government Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill 736 this week, which will help St. Francois County make the move to a first class county. I was happy to have the Presiding Commissioner of St. Francois County, Dr. David Cramp, come to Jefferson City and testify on behalf of the bill. This would be a big stride forward for St. Francois County and I’m honored to be a part of it.

The Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee held a hearing Monday on Senate Bill 689. The legislation, which I’m sponsoring, would add undue influence—using authority over an elderly or disabled person to take unfair advantage of that person—to the types of acts that constitute a crime of financial exploitation. I hope the bill makes it through the committee and is ultimately passed by the General Assembly. We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable people in our state, and this bill would go far in prosecuting those who abuse the elderly and disabled.

Missouri eases rules for building CAFOs despite pollution concerns

By Allison Kite

Missouri Independent

Missouri regulators on Tuesday eased the rules governing design of massive industrial hog facilities in a move critics claim was meant to help one controversial facility.

The state’s Clean Water Commission voted 5-1 to narrow the definition of groundwater in the state’s rules governing construction of “concentrated animal feeding operations” — dense animal raising facilities that often include massive tanks to store manure.

The change was decried by environmentalists and small farmers who attended the meeting, who said the commission was looking out for corporate agricultural interests while putting the safety of the state’s groundwater at risk.

“It is not your job to remove red tape for a CAFO,” said Mary Bolling, a farmer in Franklin County. “It is your job to protect the water for the citizens of the state of Missouri.”

At issue is whether “perched water,” underground water that sits above the larger body of groundwater, should be considered groundwater. The state’s rules about CAFO construction require that underground manure pits be situated above bodies of groundwater. If perched water is not considered, opponents argued, the structural integrity of those manure pits can be compromised and waste can seep into the groundwater.

The Department of Natural Resources filed a proposed amendment that would exclude perched water from that definition last year and planned to adopt it on an expedited timeline, as first reported by the Kansas City Star. The department has argued it made an error when previously amending regulations and needed to provide clarity for CAFO operators.

 

But residents of Livingston County, who have fought back efforts to build a CAFO there, and environmentalists argue the move seemed designed to benefit the owner of the previously-proposed Livingston County CAFO. Applicants withdrew the proposal earlier this year.

The CAFO would have been owned by United Hog Systems, LLC. The company’s owner, Robert Zeysing, did not immediately return a phone call and email seeking comment. An employee reached by phone said the company didn’t offer statements.

Robert Brundage, an attorney representing the Missouri Pork Association, said in a statement his clients were pleased with the reinstatement of the rule.

“These definitions will again provide clarity and direction to CAFO design engineers. Contrary to assertions made by the rules’ opponents, these definitions do not weaken pollution standards or enable a CAFO to discharge manure to the state’s waters.”

Livingston County CAFO

The Livingston County CAFO was first proposed near Chillicothe more than a year ago. An engineer working on the project filed a revised application in September for nearly 10,500 hogs across three barns at the site, which was to be known as the Z-8 Sow Farm. The facility, which could produce more than 8.2 million gallons of manure and wastewater per year, would be owned by United Hog Systems, LLC.

CAFOs are often opposed by nearby residents concerned about the smell and potential for air and water pollution. In Livingston County, neighbors have organized a Facebook group to keep up with environmental legislation under consideration by the Missouri General Assembly and DNR’s regulatory changes.

Susan Fair, a member of the group who lives outside Chillicothe, said the CAFO had the potential to ruin the quality of life for neighbors. And she noted the owner wasn’t local, the hogs wouldn’t be purchased from local producers and said the construction materials wouldn’t come from the area.

“I have yet to hear one advantage for my community,” she said.

The Livingston County CAFO would have also sat near the state’s Poosey Conservation Area, which includes woods, tallgrass prairie, hiking trails, camping sites, a shooting range and the Indian Creek Community Lake.

Livingston County neighbors, under the organization Poosey Neighbors United LLC, filed suit late last year to to stop DNR from changing the groundwater rules on an expedited basis.

According to the suit, neighbors found perched groundwater two to three feet below the surface on the site in March of 2020. Later in the year, DNR initiated an emergency rulemaking effort to remove perched water from the definition of groundwater for consideration of CAFO application, sparking the suit.

“The only pending CAFO permit application that would be affected by and benefitted by an emergency rule that excludes ‘perched water table’ from the definition of ‘groundwater table’ is the current application submitted by United Hog Systems for the Z-8 Sow Farm,” the lawsuit, filed Dec. 15, says.

The CAFOs September application, for its part, says a geotechnic test found perched water much farther underground — 15 feet.

A Cole County Circuit judge ordered DNR last year not to go forward with the change on an expedited schedule.

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs filed an amended complaint Tuesday following the vote, saying the change was unlawful.

“During the comment period…expert scientific hydrogeological evidence was submitted to the (Clean Water Commission), which showed there is no reasonable basis to exclude ‘perched groundwater’ at a concentrated animal feeding operation site from the scope of regulation,” the complaint says, adding that other facilities, including wastewater treatment plants, are subject to perched groundwater regulations.

 
Outcry from environmentalists

DNR received a myriad of comments against the proposal from environmental groups, neighbors, rural advocates and scientists in March, urging the agency not to move forward with the change.

“The Missouri Department of Natural Resources is responsible for protecting groundwater, not for prioritizing corporate profits,” said Marisa Frazier of the Missouri chapter of the Sierra Club. “Changing the groundwater definition to exclude perched water for only CAFOs shows a strong and scientifically unfound bias on behalf of these factory farms.”

The local chapter of the American Institute of Professional Geologists urged DNR officials to create a working group to come up with a “reasonable and effective rule based on scientific and engineering principles” already in place to regulate solid waste facilities.

“Given the extraordinary complexities of groundwater occurrences in Missouri, a proposed rule of this nature could impact generations of Missourians,” the group wrote.

 

Brundage spoke in favor of the change in March, saying CAFO builders need clarity surrounding the rules. He noted the rules only cover the design of the facility, not efforts CAFO owners have to undertake to protect groundwater.

“I also want to point out that, you know, we’ve heard some testimony today that people are worried about CAFOs polluting the groundwater,” Brundage said in March. “You know, to my knowledge, there has been no instance where a CAFO has been — polluted the groundwater.”

In his statement Tuesday, he added: “Clearly, the CAFO rules have served the state well and will continue to do so with the reinstatement of these definitions.”

Jeanne Heuser, a Moniteau County resident, responded that’s because the state does inadequate monitoring for water quality.

Brian Smith, a rural organizer with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the decision. He noted the myriad comments DNR received opposing the change.

“And yet they still approved it on the basis of corporate agriculture — at their behest and for their benefit at the expense of the rest of us,” he said.

Commissioners had little discussion over the issue aside from the comments from Commissioner John Reece, who said the regulations didn’t go far enough in holding CAFO operators accountable.

Reece, a retired executive director of the Little Blue Valley Sewer District, was the lone vote against the change.

The rest of the commission — Ashley McCarty, executive director of Missouri Farmers Care; Stan Coday, a board member of the Missouri Farm Bureau; Allen Rowland, a farmer from Dexter and former member of the Missouri Corn Board; Patricia Thomas, treasurer of the Missouri Republican Party; and Neal Bredehoeft, a farmer in Lafayette and Saline counties and former president of the Missouri Soybean Association board — voted for the change.

He suggested the commission do a more thorough review of its CAFO regulations governing both design and operations.

“Doggone it, these CAFO owners, they’re in it for a profit, to make money, and I really feel like they need to be held accountable,” Reece said.

Allison Kite is a data reporter for The Missouri Independent and Kansas Reflector, with a focus on the environment and agriculture. A graduate of the University of Kansas, she’s covered state government in both Topeka and Jefferson City, and most recently was City Hall reporter for The Kansas City Star.

As Missourians seek COVID tests, politicians seek to lay blame for long lines, shortages

By Rudi Keller and Rebecca Rivas

Missouri Independent

Missourians are scrambling to find coronavirus tests amid surging cases of COVID-19 caused by the omicron variant, and politicians are scrambling to find someone to blame for the shortage.

The state is rationing the tests it is buying for residents. No one will be able to order a free at-home test from the state Department of Health and Senior Services vendor until Wednesday, and after that only a limited supply will be available each day.

And for more than a week, University of Missouri Health Care in Columbia has limited testing to people who have symptoms to conserve testing supplies.

To combat the shortage, on Thursday, St. Louis announced two partnerships to provide 1,000 to 2,000 additional tests each day,

Also on Thursday, Rep. Cori Bush, D-St. Louis, sent Gov. Mike Parson a letter pleading with him to ask President Joe Biden for federal help to set up a testing site in St. Louis.

Speaker-elect Richard reports $35,790 in contributions during past month

Incoming Speaker of the House Ron Richard, R-Joplin, received $35,790 in contributions during the past month, including a $7,500 cash infusion from Ameren UE, according to his 30-day-after-election report filed today with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Richard spent $12,045.04, leaving him with $59,918.36 in his account.

Among those contributing to Richard:

Comcast, Southfield, Mich., $1,650; Molina Health Care, Long Beach, Calif., $500; Advantage Capital Management, New Orleans, $2,500; Missouri Restaurant Association, St. Louis, $1,000; Title Max, Savannah, Ga., $1,000; Voters for Good Government, St. Charles, $1,000; Humana, Louisville, Ky., $1,000; Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Neb., $2,000; Altria, Richmond, VA., $2,000; APS Health Care, Windsor Hill, Md., $2,000; Waste Management, Houston, Texas, $1,000; American Family Insurance PAC, St. Joseph, $1,000; Brent Hemphill and Associates, lobbyists, Jefferson City, $500; Kansas City Power and Light, $1,000; GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, $1,000; Penn National Gaming, $1,500

Post-Dispatch editorial: the sad legacy of the Jetton era

An editorial posted on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website sums up Rod Jetton's years in power in the Missouri House as a waste:

Perhaps the greatest irony of Mr. Jetton’s last days in the Legislature was that work on voter ID, as well as work on such causes as abortion restrictions and illegal immigration, was held up by a Jetton sweetheart deal that even his GOP colleagues hated.

A year ago, Mr. Jetton had engineered a stealth amendment to an economic development bill that benefited developer Robert W. Plaster of Lebanon, a major campaign contributor and hunting buddy of the speaker’s. The amendment allowed a single person — in this case, Mr. Plaster — to incorporate land near Table Rock Lake as a “village,” thus bypassing local officials in Stone County.

Other developers began trying to take advantage of the “village law,” causing local officials around the state to complain to their legislators. Their effort to repeal the village law caused a logjam and filibusters during the last week of the legislative session. Mr. Jetton finally relented at 4 o’clock Friday morning, but only after cutting a deal that gives Mr. Plaster more time to set up his village.

By then, even some of his fellow Republicans were sick of him. Still, by dragging his feet Rod Jetton may inadvertently have saved the people of Missouri from several other lousy laws. It’s not much of a legacy for the star of the Class of 2000, but it’s all there is.

Jetton's connection to Robert Plaster was explored in the Oct. 17, 2007, Turner Report and this is a prime example of money influencing politics:

Speaker of the House Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, received $6,375 from Lebanon developer Robert Plaster or interests connected to him on Sept. 24, according to his third quarter disclosure report filed Oct. 11 with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

The report indicates the Speaker Jetton Leadership Committee received maximum $1,275 contributions from Plaster, something listed as Plaster Grandchildren Invest, Evergreen National, and Empire Ranch. All have the mailing address, Box 129, Lebanon.

The Springfield News-Leader has had a series of article and editorials exploring how Jetton inserted a provision in a law that went into effect Aug. 28 that will allow Plaster to have an easier time taking property he owns and incorporating it as a village, which will exempt it from such governmental controls as planning and zoning ordinances

.

Joplin crews back to working on main roads after latest snowfall

The latest snowfall has forced Joplin city street crews to return to their usual routine of limiting work to major streets. From the news release:

After completing over 25% of residential streets on their second pass of compacting snow in the neighborhoods, City crews have moved back to snow removal along the main roads. The City crews are working 24/7 to address the snow packed roads throughout Joplin.


“With this recent snowfall, our priorities have shifted back to the main roads to plow them to allow safe passage of emergency vehicles and others who may have to travel today,” said Public Works Director David Hertzberg. “Of course, we encourage people to stay home if possible.”

Citizens are reminded that if they need to get out for various errands, business, and/or medical appointments, the Sunshine Lamp Trolley is running today.

“Many people have already taken advantage of this City service,” said Mark Rohr, City Manager. “With three routes in place, the Trolley travels throughout the City and can help our residents if they need to get out for various reasons.”

The Trolley runs 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday; and from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. Residents can transfer trolleys among the three routes as needed to reach their destination. Trolley costs are $1 per ride. Residents who are disabled, over the age of 60, and/or Medicare recipients qualify for a half-fare rate. For more information about the Sunshine Lamp Trolley, call 417-626-8609.

In addition, the Recycling Center is closed today due to the snow, and Allied Waste Services has cancelled residential trash service.

“I understand that they tried to run a couple of trash routes, but the trucks have a hard time maneuvering in this kind of weather, so they had to cancel,” said Hertzberg. “We are hoping the warmer weather predicted next week will allow Allied to get back on schedule.

Note to Romney: You've got women problems in Missouri

(The following is my latest blog for Daily Kos.)

In the ideal Todd Akin world, the women would stay in their place, at the back of the bus, barefoot and…well, just barefoot until he can think of something.

Akin’s primitive ideas about “legitimate” rape have put Missouri Republicans on the defensive and have focused the spotlight on the GOP’s views of women, an area that was already a problem even before Akin blundered his way through his interview with Fox 2’s Charles Jaco.

Akin’s idea that there should be no abortion exceptions for rape and incest is shared by one of the people, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, at the top of the ticket. Akin’s race is the second major race on the ballot.

On the third, there appears to be little chance that St. Louis businessman David Spence will unseat popular Democratic incumbent governor Jay Nixon.

And that brings us to the fourth position and another major headache for Republicans where women are concerned- incumbent lieutenant governor Peter Kinder.

Kinder eked out a victory over challenger Brad Lager in the primary, but not before being hit with a barrage of advertising focusing on his frequenting of a strip club, (and one called the Horny Toad) and his alleged “aggressive behavior” with one of the dancers.

In other words, Kinder is also going to prove to be an anchor dragging down the Republican party’s chance to score with women (my apologies for that play on words) in November.

The Democrats are in perfect position to take advantage of the Republicans’ unforced errors. Akin is trying to unseat a female senator with a long record as a tough campaigner. After his remarks, Claire McCaskill has to be Akin’s biggest nightmare.

Kinder, too, has a female opponent, former State Auditor Susan Montee. Some of the biggest money men in Missouri, Joplin’s David Humphreys and retired billionaire Rex Sinquefield of St. Louis, have not only distanced themselves from Kinder, but even poured more than $1.2 million into an unsuccessful attempt to dislodge him in the primary.

Humphreys has already made it clear he has no use for Todd Akin, telling the Joplin Globe, “Akin is a moron.”

My guess is Humphreys, the CEO of TAMKO Building Products, is not going to waste his money on a “moron.”

Combine the GOP’s problems with women, with the presence of Gov. Nixon, Attorney General Chris Koster, and State Treasurer Clint Zweifel, all incumbents with greater name recognition than their opponents, and no scandals (at this writing, anyway) lurking, it seems hard to understand why the political pundits are so quick to chalk up a victory for Mitt Romney in Missouri.

All of the polls to this point have shown Romney leading, but the fall campaign is barely underway and the women of Missouri have a notorious independent streak.

Don’t be so quick to hand the Show-Me State to Mitt Romney. Missourians do not like being taken for granted. Thanks to the Republicans doing the old-fashioned, chivalrous act of opening the door for women (at least as an issue in this campaign), this red state is looking more purple all the time.

Missouri Democratic Party says new poll shows Carnahan campaign has momentum

The Missouri Democratic Party is trumpeting a new poll as evidence that it has momentum:

A recent Missouri statewide poll that includes the US Senate race between Robin Carnahan, Roy Blunt, Jonathan Dine and Jerry Beck conducted by Global Strategy Group (Sept. 14-18) and released by the Missouri Democratic Party shows the margin between Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan tightening, with each receiving 37 percent of the vote. The race remains within the margin of error when counting voters who are still undecided but leaning towards a candidate.


"This poll shows that the more Missourians learn about Congressman Blunt's ties to corruption and the 14 years he has spent as a Washington Insider, the less likely they are to vote for him," said Missouri Democratic Party Communications Director Ryan Hobart. "After 14 years of not being held accountable, Missourians are starting to realize Congressman Blunt represents the very worst of Washington when it comes to waste, corruption and sticking it to the middle class."

Congressman Blunt began airing television ads six weeks before the Robin Carnahan campaign was on television. In addition, his corporate special interest allies including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads have spent more than $2 million attacking Robin Carnahan. This poll shows Robin Carnahan gaining ground and closing the gap once held by Congressman Blunt.

Global Strategy Group conducted this poll of 601 likely voters statewide for the Missouri Democratic Party September 14-18. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 4%.

Buried in the stats below the news release are figures that indicate Blunt still has a slight advantage since he has a six percent to two percent lead among voters who are slightly leaning toward one candidate or the other.

   Newspapers are doomed.
   I hate to be that blunt about it. I hate even more to say it...and mean it. I spent most of my adult life working for newspapers. I watch them do everything they can to squeeze a few more dollars out of their customers, everything that is except improve their products.
   Edgar Simpson's column in the Sunday Joplin Globe pointed out one of the biggest problems facing newspapers today. How can you get young people to read them? Simpson, the Globe's top editor, spoke to a class at an area university (he didn't specify which one). His task, he said, was to find out how to turn more of the students into regular readers of his newspaper. "The latest generation consumes information differently from any who have gone before," Simpson wrote. "As a class, they are skimmers, not ponderers. They want their information short, to the point and with a bottom line."
   That's a copout.
   Yes, young people have much more to do than they did in the past. Yes, they devote less time to newspapers. The day when newspapers were the only game in town has long since vanished. Newspapers need to adjust to the times and most of them haven't. That's why many of them are no longer in business. When USA Today first came out two decades ago it spawned a legion of imitators who believed they had to serve out newspaper stories in bite-sized chunks so they wouldn't risk boring the readers, all of whom if you believed their mantra, have short attention spans.
   It didn't work. What newspapers ended up doing is sacrificing the biggest advantage they have over television. They were no longer providing the depth to help readers understand the issues that confront them. Television offers 30 second to 90 second stories with not much time to explore issues or occurrences. Newspapers have to be able to answer the questions that TV cannot.
   The USA Today imitators failed to realize that making stories shorter wasn't why USA Today was successful. USA Today had short WELL-WRITTEN stories. And during the past few years USA Today has seen the light and features a lot more longer storiers than it used to.
   Young readers aren't going to waste their time reading long, boring stories. That part the newspaper eidtors got right. What they failed to realize is young readers are not going to read short, boring stories either. They will read interesting short articles and, contrary to popular opinion, they will read long, interesting articles.
   One of the major problems with today's newspapers, not just in this area but across the country is that they are poorly written and the articles are about things the publishers and editors want to have in the paper, not what the readers want.
   When I was editor at The Carthage Press (and how many times have the readers of this blog seen that phrase), we took several steps to get younger readers interested in reading the paper and developing that newspaper habit that is so vital to keeping the medium alive.
   -We emphasized strong, in-depth writing and photographic coverage of events. The first step to success with readers young and old is to make sure there is something interesting in the paper everyday.
   -School coverage is important. Reporters need to cover every aspect of education, not just what takes place in the board of education meetings. How do changes affect students, teachers, taxpayers, etc. Write features about education, ranging from people who make great accomplishments (win National History Day, a national essay contest or something of the like) to kindergarteners just getting an idea of what school is all about. Get reporters who actually don't think it is beneath them to interview kids.
   -Hire young reporters and give them a big say in what they write about. At The Press, we won the Missouri Press Association's Community Service Award in 1998 for Teen Tuesday, a two-page spread we had in each Tuesday's paper written, edited, and photographed by teens. That section, spearheaded by a talented high school senior named Stacy Rector (who now works as a reporter for a newspaper in the Dallas area) covered everything from school events to pop culture to features on subjects such as teen pregnancy. Stacy's long, extremely well-written feature on a teen mother not only read by young and old alike in Carthage and the surrounding area but it won Stacy first place honors in the feature category in the MPA's annual Better Newspaper Contest. Any newspaper could do this, but I doubt if any of the local ones could do it successfully. You have to be willing to work with these kids, train them, and steer them in the right direction those times they get off course. As far as I can tell, there aren't any editors around who have that teaching ability that can turn young reporters into successful reporters. Most newspapers that use young writers try to shove them in a corner where all they write are school and sports stories.
   -Young readers should be treated with respect. Editors are insulting them if they try to dumb down a page or fill it up with stories and photos about people like Britney Spears or whoever the hot new sensation is. They can get that stuff on the Internet. And the people on the Internet can do it better and cheaper than they can. The newspaper's job is to interest young readers in that newspaper.
   -Don't assume that young readers are only interested in pop culture or teen-oriented stories. They will read about Iraq. They will read about politics. They will read stories about Alzheimer's Disease. But they are not going to read them if they are poorly written and in this area, poor writing seems to be the norm.
   I could go on and on (and for the most part, I already have). Give young people something to read that is worth reading and they will read. Bore them to tears and the newspaper will go the way of the dinosaur.
***
   Today's issue of The Carthage Press is another example of how to turn off readers. Page one has one local story "Renovations on track at Over 60 Center) It has two local photos, both linked with that story. When people can get all the national and international news they need on TV and the Internet, a local newspaper has to provide the one thing it can offer that the others cannot...local news. Monday is a tough day since for the most part news events don't take place over the weekend (at least not scheduled ones). That is one reason the Globe runs its police blotter material on that day.
   A small town newspaper, in order to survive and to serve its community, has to have a strong, local page one every day. It also needs to have a localized opinion page with strong, local columnists, local editorials, and letters to the editor. The newspapers that serve this area, The Press, The Neosho Daily News, the Lamar Democrat, and others do not make the investment in strong local reporting, and strong local opinions. Those are what make newspapers viable in the 21st Century.
  

Transcript provided for President Obama's speech on healthcare

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth — the only wealthy nation — that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many employers especially small businesses are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally like our automakers are at a huge disadvantage. And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors' groups and even drug companies many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies — because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan — more security and stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those — particularly the young and healthy — who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions just can't be achieved.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I'd like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public and that is how we pay for this plan.

Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. That's not my judgment it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

These steps will ensure that you America's seniors get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Finally, many in this chamber particularly on the Republican side of the aisle have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent but spent badly in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

This is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here — people of both parties — know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient's Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it.

That large-heartedness — that concern and regard for the plight of others — is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.