State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, chair of the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus (MLBC), is asking caucus members to inform her of how they intend to vote when Missouri Republicans attempt to override Governor Jay Nixon’s commendable veto of House Bill 235.
HB 235 is billionaire financier Rex Sinquefield’s backward tax cut legislation. Like similar legislation in Kansas, this bill would drastically cut funding for area schools, cut mental health funding and give huge tax breaks to the wealthy.
“Dear MLBC members,” Nasheed’s assistant wrote in an email: “Sen. Nasheed has requested your vote of YES, NO, or UNDECIDED regarding your vote relative to the veto override attempt for HB 253. This request is time sensitive so as soon as possible please email your response to me as soon as possible.”
The EYE is amazed if any Black Caucus member would even consider reversing their vote and siding with the Republicans on tax cuts that would be very harsh on their constituents. House Speaker Tim Jones has been rededicating himself to overriding these irresponsible tax cuts – which would do tremendous damage, especially to the poor people urban legislators like the Black Caucus members were elected to represent.
Jones originally reported to media outlets that he was not confident that he could beat Nixon’s veto, despite veto-proof 60 percent majorities in the Senate and House. Why is Birther Jones now reenergized to take on the governor?
Sinquefield has raised the ante and spent nearly $2.4 million to fund an ad campaign and lobbying effort to pass HB 253. In case he is willing to spend any more money to help his legislation during, veto override session, the Black Caucus and all Missouri Democrats should resist any temptation. No one in the Black Caucus should end up on the wrong side of this dreadful legislation when the Legislature reconvenes in September.
Talk to us
A thoughtful reader of the EYE sent us a detailed 7-page letter, postmarked August 13, pertaining to a recent column. This incisive summary from an anonymous writer said our assessment of the racial overtones of a recent news event was more accurate than we realized. This document, written from the inside, supplies much additional information, which is starting to check out as we ask around. We ask that the person who mailed us this document contact our managing editor at cking@stlamerican.com. We will protect your anonymity, but wish to ask you some questions. Thank you.
Spineless Slay
Nasheed’s other new unlikely ally (ever since her primary run last August), Mayor Francis G. Slay, seems to be dodging declaring whether or not he supports the major regressive tax proposal pushed by his single largest campaign donor, Sinquefield.
Eli Yokley of Politico reports that “Maggie Crane, a spokesperson for Slay, declined to weigh in on the mayor’s position on the bill, which Republican lawmakers are hoping to enact into law by overriding Nixon’s veto.”
Yokley adds that Slay’s biggest campaign donor has shelled out nearly $2.4 million to fund an ad campaign and lobbying effort to pass HB 253.
Kansas City Mayor Sly James, on the other hand, is showing the spine to resist Sinquefield that Slay always notably lacks. “Mayor James supports the veto,” James spokesperson Joni Wickham told Politico.
Kevin in color
When the Post-Dispatch ran what amounted to an endorsement of Donna Baringer for St. Louis license collector last week, the EYE was reminded of something Post editorial page editor Tony Messenger said at an NAACP town hall forum at Shalom Church (City of Peace) in June.
Messenger brought up himself the fact that the Post endorsed not one single black candidate in a number of contested primaries last August. Then he did a little on-the-spot soul searching about this pattern of his all-white editorial board endorsing only white candidates.
“When deciding which candidates to endorse from the people we had invited in for interviews, were we aware that we were not endorsing any African Americans? Yes,” Messenger told the NAACP forum.
“Did that bother me? Yes. But not enough to change my mind. But I was aware of the fact and it did bother me and I knew it was a problem with the community.”
Messenger then made a remarkable statement, given the officially color-blind and objective editorial policies of most daily newspapers, including his.
“Moving forward in the next election, if there is a candidate who is close, that could effect the decision,” Messenger said. “I am aware if this happens too many years in a row, it could create a perception in the community.”
To be clear, Baringer – the Post’s (white) candidate for license collector – is not standing for election. The incumbent, Michael McMillan, has resigned to take Jim Buford’s old job at the Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis. His successor as license collector will be appointed by the governor. But a number of candidates are basically campaigning for the appointment, and instead of Baringer the Post could have endorsed (for example) Karla May (good idea) or Jeffrey Boyd (bad idea), both of whom are black.
The EYE supposes neither black candidate was “close” enough to being worthy for the Post to take into consideration its long streak of white-only endorsements (other than the paper’s endorsements of Barack Obama for president).
Needless to say, the Post did not say it endorsed Baringer because she is white. The paper endorsed her because she claims “she’ll work to eliminate the office,” which the paper considers to be a redundant office. Kevin Horrigan, whose byline is appended to the piece, does briefly raise the issue of “color” (by which, the EYE presumes, he means race), but only to dismiss it.
“The reality of race politics in the city suggest that because Mr. McMillan is black, Mr. Nixon will be under some pressure to appoint a black successor. Ms. Baringer is white, as are four of the incumbent county officeholders,” Horrigan writes. “We care less about what color the new license collector is than whether he or she will work to close the office down.”
Horrigan’s sense of St. Louis politics through the prism of race has evolved to the coloring book phase of psychosocial development. He confesses to see in “color,” but not to care what color a candidate is. The history of African Americans and their struggle for proportionate representation in government – which certainly includes leveraging Democrat officials with appointing power to appoint black folks to offices that a black candidate has seized – is lost on Horrigan.
Alderman Antonio French saw red over this.
“The ‘color-blind’ Kevin Horrigan continues his long streak of all-white endorsements – again based on things that are in no way qualifications for the job,” French wrote to Horrigan and his editor, Messenger.
“Since when is wanting to do the best job for the city trumped by a political promise to eliminate the job entirely? I wonder if that was part of the equation in past Post endorsements of Gregory F.X. Daly when he held the position for many years? Was he ever asked to eliminate his own office before receiving the paper’s endorsement?”
French then recommends Horrigan for sensitivity training. The EYE knows – the EYE knows. First, Missouri rodeo clowns. Now, Kevin Horrigan!
“I suggest the owners of the Post-Dispatch invest in some much-needed sensitivity training for Mr. Horrigan,” French writes. “Perhaps it will open his eyes to how his words are interpreted by many of the Post‘s African-American readers.”
