Ed Martin: Make earmarks transparent

In a video posted by Jason Rosenbaum, Third District Republican Congressional candidate Ed Martin offers his thoughts on earmarks:

Cynthia Davis: Federal government is subsidizing promiscuity

In her latest capitol report, term-limited Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, reveals that poverty does not come because people don't have jobs, but because they are not married.

Mrs. Davis believes the federal government has been the instigator behind the growth of poverty because it  is "subsidizing promiscuity."

Those who are worried that Mrs. Davis will no longer be able to save our nation from

its misguided policies have nothing to fear. Not only is she chairman of the St. Charles County Republican Committee, but she is also executive director of the Center for Marriage Policy, a place where people remain married so they will never have to fear poverty, and where hunger is always used as a motivator for children:

My sister lived in France for a number of years. When I went to visit her, she introduced me to many traditional French delicacies; one of which was Pâté de Foie Gras (If you are of my generation or older, the only place I had ever heard of this was on The Three Stooges -but I’ve digress.) Pâté de Foie Gras is a special spread made from a fatty liver of a force-fed goose. When I think of many governmental solutions to poverty, there are some parallels with a forced-fed goose. A lot of well intentioned efforts to create something beneficial turn out to be unpalatable or cause pain to others in ways never imagined and certainly very unnatural.

While it may seem like we are correcting the presenting problem, the resulting bigger government foists programs upon us that rob both the taxpayers and recipients of their natural dignity.

The Speaker of the House appointed a committee to study poverty. Do you think with all the unemployment, there would be a proportional increase in poverty? Surprisingly, no. Taken in the aggregate, marital status is a greater indicator of poverty than job status! An old expression says, “You get more of what you subsidize and you get less of what you tax.” Our national government has been subsidizing promiscuity and has been taxing marriage and those with an ambitious work ethic. The policies of the current federal administration are designed to escalate this to a higher level yet.

The only hope left is for the states to design policies that will reverse this trend because they are on a financial collision course. If you have the time to read through the report we produced, you will learn some innovative ideas that you will not hear about on the evening news. We toured the Sunshine Mission in St. Louis and heard from some of the foremost experts in the entire country about how to solve many poverty related issues. The answers will surprise you because they do not involve bigger government or more money thrown at the problem.

We are on a mission to save our state from waste, fraud and abuse. The first place to start is by understanding which programs help and which ones merely exacerbate the problem. Sometimes our methods of involvement actually do more damage than good. Those who study alcoholism understand the concept of co-dependency. In many cases, the government has been acting like a co-dependent---enabling people to destroy themselves so that they will have a greater need for more government. The only lasting solutions come from the private sector.

Earmarks attacked in latest Roy Blunt-Worst in Washington ad

The Robin Carnahan for Senate campaign aims its guns at Roy Blunt's earmark record in the latest in its "Worst in Washington" series:

But what are the Republicans saying about Roy Blunt?

The Missouri Republican Party sent out a fascinating news release last week detailing how Democrats are allegedly unhappy with their U. S. Senate candidate, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. Considering there was nothing really damning in the news release, it seems like a poor strategy releasing it, considering what the Democrats could do with the already expressed dissatisfaction with their candidate, Seventh District Congressman Roy Blunt.

This makes no more sense than the statements the GOP issued earlier concerning lobbyists, which is a probably a word the Blunt campaign should avoid like the plague. From the news release:

Across the nation, pundits have predicted and polls have shown a massive enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democrat voters. Democrats are demoralized, upset, and much more unlikely to vote than Republicans, who are energized and excited about casting a ballot on November 2.


Over the past several months, this enthusiasm gap has been apparent in Missouri—and it seems to be getting worse for Democrats. The extent of the Democrats’ problems were on vivid display this week from three unlikely sources—a United States Senator, a former Missouri Governor, and a newspaper at a major university.

“Anyone searching for examples of unenthusiastic Democrats need not look beyond Robin Carnahan’s lackluster campaign,” said Lloyd Smith, Executive Director of the Missouri Republican Party. “Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted that her support for Carnahan has been ‘painful,’ a stance echoed by a university newspaper this week. When the people who should be Robin Carnahan’s staunchest supporters—Democrat leaders and young Obama voters—cannot muster anything better than half-hearted endorsements, Carnahan has a major problem.”

Robin Carnahan has received tepid endorsements from her supporters, and even Democrats are beginning to acknowledge that her campaign is collapsing.

In an audio clip from an unknown source, McCaskill is heard endorsing Carnahan’s campaign for Senate, before qualifying her statement with the following: “having said that, there’s a lot of people I support that I disagree with. That was painful.” (listen to the audio here)

According to Politico, former Missouri Governor, fellow Democrat, and like Gov Carnahan, a former resident of Birch Tree, MO, Bob Holden challenged Carnahan’s claims that she is political outsider, arguing that her “family has been involved in national politics and very credibly involved.” He also argued that Carnahan’s chance of victory was becoming slimmer by the day.

And the Washington University student newspaper printed what has to be one of the most unflattering and half-hearted endorsements of a candidate ever written. The op-ed accuses Carnahan of being uninformed, “uninspiring,” “petty,” and disappointing, and says that voting for her will be “painful.”

Given Sen. McCaskill’s “painful” support of Carnahan, Gov. Holden’s denigration of her chances, and the college newspaper’s feeble endorsement of her campaign, it’s no wonder Democrats, including Carnahan, are struggling in the polls.

Hartzler news release appears to overestimate Skelton's power

A news release issued Thursday by Republican Vicky Hartzler's campaign blames incumbent Ike Skelton for casting the deciding vote to adjourn without addressing the tax issue. The final vote was 210-209, but the news release fails to reveal how Skelton's vote was any more the deciding vote than those cast by any of the other 209 who agreed with him:

Congressman Ike Skelton has again demonstrated his loyalty to ultra-liberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by giving her the Missouri 4th Congressional District vote as the U.S. House voted 210-209 to adjourn without extending the Bush-era tax cuts. If Congress fails to return to address the tax cut issue in a "lame duck" session after the November election the tax rates of Missourians and other Americans will rise dramatically.


4th District Republican candidate Vicky Hartzler has wasted little time criticizing the decision to adjourn and expressing disappointment with Congressman Skelton for refusing to stand with residents of the 4th District as he cast the deciding vote on an issue whose outcome was determined by the slimmest of margins.

"Ike Skelton and the Democrat-controlled Congress have failed us again," said Hartzler. "It's unconscionable that the U.S. House would vote to go home without taking a stand to protect Americans by extending these important tax cuts that literally allow some middle- and lower-income Missourians to feed their families. 39 Democrats voted with the people to extend the tax cuts but Congressman Skelton chose to side with Nancy Pelosi and against the interests of 4th District Missourians who cannot afford to see their taxes increase in the new year."

The Wall Street Journal estimates failure to extend the tax cuts could result in a married couple with an annual adjusted gross income of $80,000 paying an additional $2,200 in taxes. A married couple earning $160,000 could see its tax burden rise by $5,500.

"I'm very disappointed that Congressman Skelton has failed to use the 4th District's precious vote to protect the interests of its taxpayers and has instead cast his lot with Nancy Pelosi and other liberals who would place an added burden on families already struggling to get by," said Hartzler. "Congressman Skelton's deciding vote to adjourn not only puts taxpayers in jeopardy, it means Congress is wrapping up its work without passing a budget. This is poor leadership - pure and simple."

Russ Carnahan ad brands Ed Martin as corrupt candidate

Third District Democratic incumbent Congressman Russ Carnahan brands challenger Ed Martin as a "corrupt candidate" in a new ad that brings out Martin's involvement in the e-mail scandal that drove Seventh District Democratic candidate Scott Eckersley out of the Blunt administration:

Taxpayers, lobbyists foot the bill for Speaker Richard, legislators to sample wine, vacation in the sun

" With his days as the self-proclaimed "most powerful man in the state of Missouri" now firmly esconced in the past, it is sad the depths to which Speaker of the House Ron Richard, R-Joplin, has fallen.

Far from having legislators at his beck and call, Richard now has others pay wine-tasting fees for him and his wife Patty.

At a time when hundreds of millions of dollars have been cut from the state budget, jobs hvae been lost, programs cut, and Missourians wonder if better times are ever going to arrive, Richard and several of his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate, spent at least three days in sunny San Diego, California, in August, attending the annual American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting.

Documents posted Thursday on the Missouri Ethics Commission website indicate Richard, as well as fellow representatives Darrell Pollock, R-Lebanon, John Diehl, R-Town and Country; Doug Funderburk, R-St. Peter's; Chuck Gatschenberger, R-Lake St. Louis; Sue Allen, R-St. Louis; Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston; Cole McNary, R-Chesterfield; Jason Smith, R-Salem; Ed Emery, R-Lamar; and Timothy Jones, R-Eureka.

Senators attending included Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield; John Griesheimer, R-Washington; and Luann Ridgeway, R-Smithville.

While the Missouri contingent was at the ALEC Conference it had the opportunity to listen to Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, who during one of the panels related his role in a lawsuit against the federal health care program.

What is amazing is how little money lobbyists spent on the Missourians despite the lavish surroundings. Ethics Commission records indicate Charles Simino, representing the Missouri Cable Telecommunications Association, paid for $9.62 lunches, $2.70 beverages, $8.77 dinners, and $11.33 wine tasting fees for Richard, Pollock, Funderburk, Griesheimer and their spouses, plus McNary and Ms. Ridgeway, as well as meals for the abovementioned, Kinder, and Gatschenberger.

Mary Scruggs, lobbyist for Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives bought $46 meals for Richard, Mrs. Richard, and Rep. Jason Smith. She also reported spending $173.17 Aug. 5 and $600 Aug. 6 for the "entire General Assembly" at San Diego, though only a small number of Republican legislators were at the conference.

Former Rep. Carl Bearden, representing United for Missouri, bought $51.08 meals Aug. 6 for Ms. Allen, Ms. Brandom, Mrs. Cunningham, Gatschenberger, Emery, Funderburk, Pollock, Griesheimer, Richard, Smith and the spouses of Richard, Pollock, Gatschenberger, and Funderburk.

Another former legislator, Michael Gibbons bought meals and paid for travel for the legislators, their spousnes, and even some of their children, according to the Ethics Commission records.

AT&T lobbyists Travis Brown and John Sondag took good care of Timothy Jones, with Brown paying for $115 worth of "entertainment" and Sondag footing the bill for a round of golf for Jones to the tune of $203, on Aug. 4, the day before the conference started.

Brown also paid $115.55 for entertainment for Diehl, and representing Pelopidas, bought a $71 meal for Ms. Ridgeway.

What is missing from the lobbyists' reports are any listings for lodging, or travel, indicating that Missouri taxpayers, like those in several other states bore the cost for the legislators' vacation in the sun.

A cached page from the ALEC website indicated that the cost of attending the session for legislators was $710, while the cost for spouses and children was $150 apiece.

ALEC convention guests were able to get the discounted rate of $219 a night for single rooms, $239 for double rooms, and $259 for triple and above at the Manchester Grand Hyatt, which boasts in its advertising of its "spectacular waterfront location" and "lavish amenities."

For those who are unaware of ALEC, it is a right-wing organization financed by major corporate and special interest groups, including Phillip Morris, Amway, the National Rifle Association, R. J. Reynolds, American Petroleum Institute, Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufactuers of Americas, and Coors.

ALEC not only has pushed pro-business legislation, but has written many of the laws passed in all 50 states, including the anti-federal health care initiative passed by Missouri voters in August. ALEC has been a leading proponent of removing all government restrictuions from businesses, privatizing government, and has been a leader in the pro-voucher movement in education.

Sinquefield contributes $3.9 million to Let Voters Decide

Let Voters Decide appears to be a somewhat misleading name.

Considering that he has already poured more than $10.6 million into the earnings tax issue, it appears retired billionaire Rex Sinquefield is planning to make the decision on his own.

Sinquefield passed the $10 million mark today when he contributed $3.9 million, which looks to be the largest amount donated in one chunk to any Missouri candidate or cause, according to Missouri Ethics Commission documents. Let Voters Decide, a Sinquefield initiative is pushing for repeal of earnings taxes in St. Louis and Kansas City.

Former Senator Singleton offers thoughts on healthcare outlook

In the following op-ed piece provided to The Turner Report, retired Sen. Marvin Singleton, who served the 32nd District in Missouri from 1990 to 2003 offers his thoughts on healthcare in America:

"Where have American innovation and the will to change the status quo gone?

 I have been a practicing physician since 1972 first in Joplin, the healthcare system then forced me to relocate to California where I became a senior partner in the world’s largest HMO, and now have recently returned from working in a government hospital in New Zealand. These experiences from solo medical practice, an HMO and finally as a salaried physician working for the government represented by a collective bargaining union, combine with the fact that I served as Republican State Senator for 12 years, to have serious concerns about the current debate regarding the future of Healthcare in America.

Beginning in 1992 a serious debate began regarding solutions to a broke healthcare system. President Clinton was unable to find a consensus regarding needed changes, leaving much up to the States to attempt to change.

 After eight years with the same problems of the under insured and uninsured with no direction, President Bush for the next eight years was unwilling to deal with the problems in spite of having control of the Congress. Inaction of the President and Congress to deal with healthcare and universal coverage, privately paid or governmentally. The Congress and the President failed to propose any solutions.

If I had the opportunity to vote on changing the Healthcare system, I would have preferred insurance reform with universal care provided by a private/public partnership. I would have voted on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which President Obama signed into effect on March 23, 2010. Not that the Law is perfect, far from it, this Law is the first step towards addressing the huge problems of healthcare. There are parts I do not like but I believe it is a work in progress in the right direction.

What I do not understand is the lack of alternative plans by those who oppose the Law? Many of the provisions which is phased in over the next 4-5 years have not even been implemented and the benefits or negative effects are not even given a chance. Americans have forgotten that innovation, discovery and change take a bit of time. We have become use to judging our companies by earnings in 3 months, research and development takes years just as the effects of this Healthcare Law will take years to see the effects.

 I would challenge the naysayers to prove the effects and make positive, specific recommendations, most of which has been lacking for the last eight years. As Yogi Berra said, “ If you don’t know where you're going, you might wind up someplace else."

Marvin Singleton, M.D.
Retired MO State Senator, R-32

Judge finds Dupont guilty; government asks for Dupont to be held without bond while awaiting sentencing

In documents filed Thursday in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the government claims former Anderson Guest House owner Robert Dupont is a flight risk and asks that be arrested immediately as he awaits sentencing.

The motion was filed shortly after Judge Greg Kays found Dupont and his wife, Laverne, guilty on two fraud charges. The Duponts were acquitted on money laundering charges.

The indictments against the Duponts and the business, Joplin River of Life Ministries, were filed after the Nov. 27, 2006, fire at the Anderson Guest House, which claimed 11 lives.

The following information was included in the judge's verdict:

Specifically, the indictment charges that the Duponts concealed that Mr. Dupont had been convicted of a health care related offense and was excluded from participation in federal health care programs.

The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dupont was a principal of Joplin River of Life Ministries, Incorporation (“JROL”) at all relevant times. Mr. Dupont incorporated JROL after his initial conviction for health care fraud. Shortly before Mr. Dupont’s imprisonment, Mr. Dupont directed that Mrs. Dupont be installed in his former position as Executive Director. The evidence revealed that Mr. Dupont continued to function as a de facto Executive Director during his prison term and after his release. During this time, the Duponts actively concealed his role as a de facto principal.

The Court relied heavily on the testimony of Walter Taylor and Susan Greene in making the determination regarding Mr. Dupont’s role at JROL. Mr. Taylor worked for JROL as a manager of several of the Guest Houses. Later, he served as a JROL board member. He testified that Mr. Dupont attended the board meetings and made “suggestions” as to how the company should be run, and that the board never contradicted his wishes. Specifically, he testified that since the other two board members were Mr. Dupont’s sons-in-law, even if he disagreed with Mr. Dupont, he knew that he would be outvoted. Among his many duties, Mr. Taylor was in charge of Medicaid billing for the Guest Houses. He took his billing documents to the Duponts for review, and Mr. Dupont often questioned his billing methods. In addition, Mr. Dupont threatened to fire, fired, and rehired Mr. Taylor on a regular basis, suggesting that Mr. Dupont
exercised authority over personnel. Mr. Dupont’s involvement with billing, personnel issues and
the board of directors all took place after he returned from prison. Mr. Taylor testified that while
Mr. Dupont was technically his wife’s assistant, in reality she was just there “for show” and Mr. Dupont was actually in charge of JROL. The Court found Mr. Taylor’s testimony credible.

Ms. Greene, a former Guest House administrator, testified that she reported primarily to Mr. Dupont after he got out of prison. Mr. Dupont supervised the payroll and made personnel decisions, including rehiring people that she had fired—effectively overruling her personnel decisions. The Court found Ms. Greene’s testimony credible.

In contrast to the testimony of Mr. Taylor and Ms. Greene on Mr. Dupont’s role, the Court gives very little weight to the testimony of Lionel Smiles. Mr. Smiles was a JROL employee who also happened to be in prison with Mr. Dupont on unrelated charges. Mr. Smiles’s testimony tended to support the Defendants’ version of events—that Mrs. Dupont was the Executive Director and that Mr. Dupont was her assistant. The Government impeached Mr. Smiles’s testimony by eliciting that he previously stated that Mr. Dupont was in charge. Mr.Smiles admitted that he made the previous statement but denied a contradiction because he felt
that he had also said that Mr. Dupont assisted his wife. In addition, Mr. Smiles initially denied having spoken with Mr. Dupont for several weeks, but later admitted that he had spoken with him after his interview with the FBI. When asked to explain these inconsistencies, Mr. Smiles denied that Mr. Dupont had influenced his testimony or told him what to say. The Court finds Mr. Smiles’s testimony largely incredible due to these inconsistencies and his general manner while testifying.

The Court finds Mr. Dupont’s testimony largely irrelevant to the question of whether he was acting as a principal or operator. He denied that he engaged in direct patient care—an issue which does not seem to be in dispute. This is likely because the parties’ defense is focused on the language of the exclusion letter. Ex. 1 at ¶ 29. Furthermore, Mr. Dupont lauded his wife’s business acumen as a means of refuting the Government’s position that she was merely a figurehead while he was the operator of JROL. The Court does not find this relevant for the reasons discussed below. The Court also notes that Mr. Dupont’s bankruptcy petition, filed in 2004, lists his occupation as JROL’s “Exec. Director.” Ex. 28 at 16.1

Based on these witnesses, the Court finds that the credible evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Robert Dupont was, at the very least, sharing the operating and principal responsibilities with his wife during and after his prison term. Though the parties focused on the language of Mr. Dupont’s exclusion letter and his subjective understanding of it, the issue before the Court is whether the Defendants’ conduct satisfies the elements of health care fraud. Based on their concealment of Mr. Dupont’s role as principal, the Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the Duponts executed a scheme or artifice to defraud the Missouri Medicaid program.

On multiple occasions, Mrs. Dupont affirmatively stated that no “operator or principal” was excluded from participation in Medicaid or had been convicted of an offense related to the operation of a long-term care facility. Exs. 21-24. Mrs. Dupont made these statements in October 2005 and February 2006, after Mr. Dupont’s exclusion. Id., Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 26-27. Since the Court has found that Mr. Dupont was a de facto principal or operator, these statements were false.

As to Mr. Dupont’s role in this scheme, the Court finds that he used his influence over the board to have Mrs. Dupont installed as Executive Director. The Court does not accept the Government’s position that Mrs. Dupont was merely a figurehead. However, the statements she made denied that any principal or operator had a health care offense conviction or was an excluded provider. It is not necessary that Mr. Dupont was the only principal or operator in order for these statements to be part of a scheme or artifice to commit health care fraud. Mr. Dupont further participated in this scheme by presenting himself to others, such as his probation officer, Adam Szura, as his wife’s assistant while he was actually acting as, at least, Co-Executive Director. Mr. Szura testified that he spoke to Mrs. Dupont as Executive Director and that his understanding of Mr. Dupont’s employment plan was that he would be “working at” JROL. Mr. Szura also testified that Mr. Dupont was not forthcoming with documentation regarding his employment, such as pay stubs and tax returns. Regarding the second element, this scheme or artifice was clearly in connection with the delivery of health care benefits. The parties have stipulated that the specific statements the Court has referenced were Missouri Medicaid licensure applications, which obviously involve health care benefits.

The Court finds that the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt Robert and Laverne Dupont executed a scheme or artifice to defraud the Missouri Medicaid program by concealing Mr. Dupont’s role as a principal in the operation of JROL’s long-term care facilities, and that this scheme was executed in connection with the delivery of health care benefits The Court finds Robert J. Dupont, Jr. GUILTY of health care fraud as charged in Count Two.

The Court finds Laverne D. Dupont GUILTY of health care fraud as charged in Count Two.