Local Control Activists Thrown Under the Bus

This was an amazing story in the Political Eye that I had not seen before (but see the update):

As for the activists, they had been on the side of local control all along. Not because they love and trust this mayor, which they do even less than the coppers love and trust him, but because they see city control of the city police as a stepping stone towards citizen overview of a police force that has done much to test public trust in its authority to impound, confiscate, arrest and use lethal force. Whether this is reasonable thinking or not, activists have believed that mayoral control of the city police would be a meaningful step towards a Civilian Review Board. Activists believe civilian review is needed because the police department has a proven, poor track record of cracking down on its own. Even federal investigators, who were expected to bring down a host of white shirts along with the petty operator Greg Shepard in the towing scam, have let down the public where there seemed to be obvious, widespread corruption in the department.

This incredible, tentative coalition is officially quitsville. The POA and Mayor Slay have sided with Sinquefield on his local control ballot initiative, and the activists have turned against them. On the face of it, it would be difficult to imagine local control activists siding with any group that includes Slay, the coppers and Sinquefield, but they have specific reasons for their opposition that were outlined in a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri.

Please read the whole thing if you haven't already. It offers some important insights into St. Louis City politics.

One thing not mentioned in this article is that several St. Louis City Democrats were paid substantial sums of money by Rex Sinquefield to work on this issue. These same Democrats are supportive of Rex's plans to inch ever closer towards privatizing education, and turn a blind eye to his insane policy suggestions (backed by millions of dollars) like the everything tax.

Update: There was a nice op-ed in the Post-Dispatch about this by Brenda Jones of the ACLU.

I Agree With Antonio French (and mostly with the American) on Russ Carnahan's Options

Antonio French is back blogging at Pub Def for what seems like the first time in eons and offers a pretty strong argument that Russ Carnahan should not run in Missouri's First District against Democrat Representative Lacy Clay. French offers several important reasons for Carnahan to avoid a Democratic showdown including tarnishing the family name and the threat of constant primary challenges even if he pulled off a victory. But what I think is the most interesting point is this one:

Some people are encouraging Carnahan to run against Clay for very selfish reasons, such as to increase turnout in their own elections. A well-financed, racially charged Congressional primary fight is sure to bring out voters for lower profile races down ballot. Like the treasurer’s race, for instance. Carnahan shouldn’t allow himself to be a tool of self-serving people who care less about the Democratic Party and the principles it stands for (such as inclusion) than they do their own ambitions. And even if Carnahan squeaked out an Election Night win, he will have so divided the district and the city that there would be little to celebrate.

If you recall, in late December I reached a fairly similar conclusion with different arguments.

French also links to the latest Political EYE in the St. Louis American which also argues, as I did, that Carnahan should run in the slightly Republican leaning 2nd District rather than against Clay. While I agree with much of what is said in the American, some of it is a bit perplexing. First of all, the title is "The growing isolation of Russ Carnahan," which strikes me as needlessly antagonistic. Carnahan might be somewhat isolated if he decided to run against Clay, but he hasn't decided that yet, so there's no reason to use that terminology. The EYE then goes on, I guess in support of their "isolation" thesis, to say the following:

Carnahan’s increasing isolation in this legal battle was made most painfully evident when the three judges on the Supreme Court appointed by Democratic governors – Chief Judge Rick Teitelman (appointed by Gov. Bob Holden), Judge Mary Russell (Holden) and Judge George Draper (recently appointed by Nixon) – recused themselves from the case.

If the EYE were to look suspiciously for evidence of behind-the-scene power-playing by party giants, such as Nixon or U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, this is the place to look. With these recusals, the EYE would conclude, the Missouri Democratic Party abandoned Russ Carnahan and all but doomed this legal effort to failure.

This claim doesn't make much sense to me. McCaskill and Nixon, as the EYE points out elsewhere, don't want a contested primary. So why would they tinker with the courts in a way to make a contested primary more likely?

But there's one part of the EYE that I think would be an especially good lesson for Democratic activists in the St. Louis area:

Democrats, both in Missouri and nationally, who do not want to see the black base antagonized by a primary challenge to Clay have pledged Carnahan all but limitless financial support to run against Akin, the EYE is told.

We need to remember that both sticks and carrots are important. Many people are spending their time telling Russ Carnahan about all of the bad things that will happen if he runs against Clay. But it's just as important for people to be committed to making good things happen if he decides to run in the 2nd. If Carnahan makes the right decision and engages the Herculean task of trying to win in the 2nd (while leaving Lacy Clay a cakewalk, and perhaps one he really doesn't deserve given the way the redistricting fight played out), then Carnahan should be rewarded with serious energy and money from St. Louis Democratic activists. He got screwed in this mess, but if he decides to do the right thing in spite of his raw deal, people should make sure that he gets the praise and support he deserves.

St. Louis American: Vote No on Prop A - and Sinquefield

The St. Louis American has officially come out against Proposition A, the ballot initiative to eliminate the earnings tax that would gut the budgets of St. Louis and Kansas City:

We have argued against Proposition A repeatedly. The city earnings tax in St. Louis is responsible for one-third of city revenue, and no one – not Sinquefield, not Slay – has any idea how to replace that revenue if the tax is eliminated. It is evident that more regressive forms of taxation, especially sales tax, would have to be raised to unconscionably high levels, placing a higher tax burden on the poor and working poor. Letting Prop A pass statewide to fight it locally on the April 2011 ballot makes no sense, because the issue will come up again every five years – shattering the confidence of the bond market in a city that suddenly will not know where one-third of its revenue is coming from. It also is possible that St. Louis could be forced into an economic crisis that would force a drastic downsizing of government in order to retain funding for public safety services. We have argued for reform of the City Charter – including trimming down the Board of Aldermen, which Slay, gutless again, did not endorse – but we do not think that disaster capitalism is the route to achieve this desired end.

While we strongly believe that Proposition A is bad for St. Louis and other municipal governments, which deserve local control over their tax decisions, we also think now is a critical time to show Rex Sinquefield that you can’t buy the public policy you desire. On Nov. 2, we all have an additional 10.7 million reasons to vote NO ON PROPOSITION A.

Image credit: The St. Louis American

Prop A Is An Attempt to Shift Tax Burden to the Poor

Rebecca Rivas at the St. Louis American wrote a great article about the consequences for the poor of Proposition A passing:

For Missourians who make $17,000 or less, about six percent of their income goes towards sales taxes – and less than one percent goes towards income taxes, according to a November 2009 study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

For those who make $412,000 or more, it’s almost completely opposite.

Less than one percent of their income goes towards paying sales taxes, and 4.4 percent goes towards income taxes.

If Missouri’s poor pay proportionately more sales tax and the rich pay proportionately more income tax, an important question for voters this November is: Why would a billionaire propose a ballot initiative that would result in getting rid of local income tax and replacing it with more sales taxes?

Read the whole article here. And then vote No on Prop A.