The Presidential Race in Missouri
by Jo Ann Emerson

There is just over a month to go until the presidential election, and across America, attention is now firmly fixed on the state of our economy. In key swing states, economic issues are now front and center. Many voters, including many women, who often take responsibility for managing their family finances, are wondering which candidate offers the best policies for their family, their town or city, and their state. But in my state, the way that each woman decides to vote could prove especially critical and indeed determinative.

Not only is Missouri a target for both presidential campaigns; it has voted for the winner in every presidential election since 1904, with just one exception, making it a true bellwether. Here are some facts that Missourians will have in mind when they go to the polls on Nov. 4, and which are particularly relevant to how they will ultimately size the candidates up where economic issues are concerned.

 

First and foremost, Missouri is the proud home of a lot of small businesses — and in the Show Me State, small businesses truly are the engine of our economy. In 2006, according to the Small Business Administration, the state had an estimated total of nearly 510,000 small businesses. Furthermore, as of 2006, nearly 98 percent of our employers were small businesses. That’s a large percentage, and one that makes clear that small-business concerns will be at the forefront of voters’ minds as they head to the polls —something that is unlikely to accrue to Barack Obama’s benefit. While the McCain-Palin campaign is advocating lower taxes, both for individuals and companies, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have something different in mind. They want to lift the earnings cap on payroll taxes (which could hit small-business owners especially hard) and raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 (many of whom are small-business owners who file under the personal income tax schedule). In a state like Missouri, where small businesses are so prevalent, that kind of policy is a non-starter — and it’s just one reason why I expect to see support for the McCain-Palin ticket build as we approach Election Day.

 

Another is the importance of coal in supplying our energy in Missouri, whether in big cities like St. Louis, or in smaller towns like many in my district. For as much as some may decry coal as “dirty energy,” the fact is that where I come from, it generates about 80 percent of our electricity, making it the dominant fuel for electricity production across the state. Taxing it — something that Barack Obama has discussed — would directly impact energy prices in my state, and not in a good way. Likewise, saying “no” to the development of clean coal, and clean-coal fired power plants, as Joe Biden recently indicated an Obama-Biden administration would do, would have a negative effect on energy prices, while simultaneously threatening jobs linked with the coal industry. John McCain understands this, as well as the need for a comprehensive, all-of-the-above approach to solving our energy problems, which must involve more drilling, the development of clean-coal technologies, more nuclear power, and yes, the production of more green power and green technology. That’s something Missourians want, and I believe it’s another reason why the McCain-Palin ticket will appeal most in my neck of the woods.

Of course, Missourians won’t be alone in looking at issues relevant to helping small businesses and energy considerations — many other states share the same concerns that we do in relation to these topics, and of course, with regard to the economy, more generally. However, I anticipate that the importance of these issues in the Show Me State could ensure that once again, in 2008, Missouri proves to be a bellwether – and one where the McCain-Palin ticket could do very well. Keep your eyes peeled on election night.

 

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson represents Missouri’s 8th Congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Submitted by Jo Ann Emerson (view blog) on Fri, 10/03/2008 - 08:50

Comments

 

Nuclear?

I'm interested in and unnerved by the call for nuclear plants as alternative power sources. You say that the people of Mo. want this, but I wonder if it's actually cheaper power that they are asking for, not specifically nuclear power.Is the campaign educating voters as to the risks and benefits of nuclear so they can cast their vote on this from an informed viewpoint, or is the push just to reassure voters that this will give them a break on power costs? 

In my husband's home country, they protested vehenmently against the development of a plant just over the border in the Czech Republic. Their fear? That should the worst case scenario happen, their farmlands, water supply, and clean environment would be destroyed, Chernoybl style. I am admittedly ignorant as to the developments in nuclear saftely, but I remain extremely skittish about the idea especially when safer technologies like wind and solar are available. 

I'm really interested to hear what you've got to say on this and delighted to see thoughtful Republican commentary here. 

 

Nerd's Eye View

Submitted by Pam on Fri, 10/03/2008 - 06:18
 

Unfortunately, the

Unfortunately, the Republicans also made it uncomfortable in our state to develop new industry to attract new jobs, such as the bio-engineering fields because of the continuing roadblocks put into place against stem cell research. We lost an entire industry because the Christian fundamentalists, many from your district, in fact, made stem cell research-based industry too uncomfortable. We could have used those jobs, now.

Though it sounds good to have lots of small businesses, you also neglect to mention our high unemployment--beyond the federal level--because we've been losing larger, corporate employers. Again because of the provincial nature of the politics in our state and the lack of genuine effort to turn this situation around the last four years.

In addition, as was pointed out yesterday during the debates, most small business owners make less than 250,000 a year and wouldn't have increased taxes under Obama/Biden. In fact, more people in this state will get a tax break under Obama/Biden than the rich fat cats that McCain/Palin support. 

As for "clean coal", Missouri's coal plants produce  "77.2 million tons of CO2, 253,000 tons of sulfur dioxide,
and 105,000 tons of nitrogen oxide; coal-fired power plants were
responsible for 56.3% of the state's total CO2 emissions. In 2005, Missouri emitted 23.7 tons of CO2 per person, about 20% higher than the U.S. average", according to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Missouri_and_coal. This in a state where its major cities suffer some of the worst air quality in the country. 

You mentioned nuclear plants, but forgot to mention that the nuclear plant we have here, and the second one being built, are run by Ameren, the state entity that let a dam deteriorate until it broke and flooded out one of our state's best natural treasures.  And who is trying to charge for the second plant before even being built with a double-digit rate increase (see http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/10/03/ap5505753.html).

Let's talk health care for a second: under our Republican Governor Blunt over 100,000 people lost their state-funded health care benefits, adding to the 1 in 5 American people without health insurance. Under the McCain/Palin plan, once the employers lose their tax beneifts providing health care coverage, we can expect the number of uninsured Missourians to reach critical levels, overwhelming our existing system of care. 

I will agree with you on one thing: this is a bellwether state. That's why I'm so happy to see Obama/Biden now leading in Missouri polls.

 

Submitted by shelleyp on Fri, 10/03/2008 - 10:40
 

Lies beginning with the

Lies beginning with the bogus primaries... Lies by the DNC/RBCLies by the corrupt overtaking of the caucuses, Lies and thuggish threats to delegates at the DNC National Convention in Denver. ( I was there!);Lies regarding Obama's record and positions.

This lifelong Democrat, and we're talking decades here, will not, can not reward the undermining of the democratic voting process by supporting the selectee of the DNC.

As far as the current candidate, I'll take a "pass", just as teh CA elgation did with my primary vote. 

Submitted by zookz on Sat, 10/04/2008 - 13:30
 

Research

My only comment to anyone reading these blogs is to research - don't just do what your fathers and grandfathers did - this is the most important vote that any of us have ever had to cast - you need to research each candidate - their associations - their contributions to charity - their accomplishements in their political careers - don't just listen to one say the other is going to raise taxes - research - and after all that research you do not come up with a reasonable solution for your vote based on FACTS not just what the mainstream media is pushing down everyone's throats - wasn't this the same media that said there were weapons of mass destruction - do your own research - and YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED.

Submitted by Miss Confused on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 13:11
 

As a small business owner

I cannot afford the taxes that Obama wants. I have always voted democratic, but during these hard economic times I just think it makes sense to curve spending on the earmarks. It's a very hard decision when you have to lay someone off and thats a decision I fear I will have to make if Obama is elected.

Submitted by Paddycake on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 13:13
 

I'm with you. I'm not crazy

I'm with you. I'm not crazy about either candidate, but I don't feel comfortable enough finanacially to risk my family's well being on an unknown quantity like Obama. I'd rather he gain more experience as a senator as opposed to on the job training in the white house. He was only a senator for something like 3 months!

 

Submitted by zookz on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 13:18
 

Senator Obama has been a

Several of the comments to this post were a direct result of a PUMA action item to basically spam weblog posts related to the election.

As such, take anything posted on October 5th with a grain of salt. 

Submitted by shelleyp on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:03
 

A Generation Later

I was never taught that a woman had a voice in politics.  Now that i know I can be effective, I try to make the right choices presented to me.  I'm very proud that I can vote and the representation of a candidate - not the party. 

Submitted by 1gypsy on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 13:18
 

Small Business

I have a small business also, but what hurt me most this year was the gasoline prices.  I raise minis and most of my buyers have been in the North and some in CA.  The buyer's couldn't afford the shipments - so now I have all these minis!!  It was a real bummer.

Submitted by 1gypsy on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 13:21
 

My Insurance

To Zooks

I'm concerned about him also.  My husband has me on his insurance policy, so I'm ok there.  I feel sorry that some think BO's insurance will help them.  I have to go to a specialist because I fell and had to have a prosthesis put in my arm.  My specialist told me he is not going to be too happy about the new plans.  He may not take anyone that doesn't have their own insurance.  That means less qualified physicians will want a plan that doesn't pay them properly.

Submitted by 1gypsy on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 13:26
 

Well done

EXCELLENT post. 

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden have something different in mind. They want
to lift the earnings cap on payroll taxes (which could hit
small-business owners especially hard) and raise taxes on Americans
making over $250,000 (many of whom are small-business owners who file
under the personal income tax schedule)."

This is huge - not only does small business drive the economy n our shared home state; it drives the economy of the whole country. Small business is where the job creation lies. I'm glad you highlighted this undisputable economic principle of the Obama-Biden ticket. 

Dana
Mamalogues.com

on KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Submitted by Mamalogues on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 11:13
 

Define a small business? I

Define a small business? I keep hearing the Republicans and others such as yourself talk about small businesses being the life blood of the state, yet most people are employeed by what I would call a small to large corporation.

To me a small business is any business that has, at most, one or two people as employees. I doubt many of these small business owners make over 250,000 in income. 

As for the larger businesses, most of them are incorporated, and plow a lot of the company profits back into business. The salaries the company owners pay themselves probably are typically under 250,000. 

Next time define your terms. Then we can go online and confirm whether what you're saying is fact, or fantasy. 

update: I went online and found a table that defines a "small business" based on industry. You can view it here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b6e780955530049....

Many of industries state that if you have fewer than 500 employees you're a small business. Well, frankly, that's pretty big to me. I imagine these companies would have executives who make more than 250,000 a year. Frankly, they can probably afford to pay a little more in taxes, considering all the government breaks they get for their businesses based on being a "small business". 

The whole small business thing is a red herring -- let's focus on income, regardless of how it's earned. There's no quibble then. According to Obama/Biden, you make over $250,000 your taxes are going to increase. That's less than %5 of the population.

Will the taxes be raised enough to cut into lifestyle? Nope. 

 In my opinion, this post is fantasy.

Submitted by shelleyp on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 11:26
BlogHer

© Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service