Oklahoma Republican State Rep. Sally Kern, last seen spouting a paranoid, delusional tirade declaring the GLBT community “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism,” is at it again. Kern, in a successful effort to prove that she’s gone completely off the deep end, has introduced a resolution blaming gays, troubled families, and general “debauchery” for the nation’s financial crisis.

The resolution itself contains several amazing charges:

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

It obviously never occurred to Kern that maybe, possibly, our economic woes are actually a consequence of Republican politicians who spent decades trying to control people’s personal lives while letting the economy spin out of control.

Next month, Democratic State Senator Gerald Malloy of South Carolina will be named one of “Katie’s Heroes” for his tireless advocacy of a state DNA registry for violent felons, which passed in 2008, and for his work as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Criminal Justice System Task Force:

John Walsh, host of America’s Most Wanted, will be presenting the award at a luncheon hosted by the family of Katie Sepich, a young woman who was brutally raped and murdered in Aug of 2003, and whose family has established a nonprofit organization called DNA Saves.

(…)DNA Saves feels that Senator Malloy’s contributions to enacting DNA arrestee legislation in South Carolina deserves recognition and appreciation for a law that will benefit many in the succeeding years. In presenting him this award, Katie’s family wants to let Senator Malloy’s constituents know that he is a hero to them as well as to the many victims of violent crime.

“This will be a vital tool for law enforcement and it is essential that we provide our law enforcement with the best tools to keep our citizens safe. This methodology is already used by the Federal Government and should be a logical extension to our State,” said Senator Malloy.

The ceremony will be held on July 22nd as part of the National Conference of State Legislatures conference in Philadelphia. We applaud Senator Malloy for this award and for his ongoing fight to keep South Carolina’s families and children safe.

On Monday, in a case involving New York State’s investigation into predatory mortgage lending practices, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling broadening the ability of states to enforce consumer protection laws against banks.

Major banks have long argued that only federal bank regulators can compel them to comply with rules meant to protect consumers from potentially unfair lending practices or pursue cases of potential discrimination against minorities.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, disagreed, concluding that state attorneys general can go after national banks on such matters. The court found, however, that states cannot unilaterally require banks to turn over information or change their behavior, the way a regulator can. Rather, they must take the banks to court.

"States were precluded from going forward to enforce consumer-protection laws against banks," said John Cooney, a partner in the law firm Venable and a specialist in regulatory law. "Now they have the green light to move forward in consumer protection and a lot of other areas."

Pennsylvania was the first state to take advantage of the new ruling when Governor Ed Rendell (also on Monday) signed a bipartisan package of state laws designed to protect state residents from unfair mortgage lending practices. The laws had a mix of Democratic and Republican sponsors, and they both passed unanimously in the Democratically-controlled House and the Republican Senate:

The laws will ensure that homeowners get more information about their mortgage terms and protect mortgage company employees who report illegal activity.

Rendell said the laws will help consumers shopping for a mortgage or refinancing their homes.

The new laws are also an important step in preventing the foreclosure crisis from repeating itself in Pennsylvania. Lawmakers believe that consumers who have more accurate information will make wiser financial decisions when seeking a mortgage.

These are not the first state laws aimed at stemming the foreclosure crisis. Back in April, we highlighted a new Illinois law giving a 90-day grace period for homeowners facing foreclosure – time to find a new job, seek debt counseling, or find other ways to get their finances in order. Other states are pursuing similar legislation around the country.

Between this new state-level push to limit foreclosures and yesterday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling, states are poised to play a much bigger role in financial regulation than perhaps ever before.

A two-year-old Oregon program is making significant progress promoting renewable energy production and energy conservation. At the same time, the success of the program is tearing down one of the most persistent, Republican-peddled lies in the rural West: that clean energy and environmental protection are somehow threats to rural livelihoods.

As Oregon’s program is proving, clean energy and rural prosperity actually go hand-in-hand:

"Renewable energy and efficiency are more prevalent in agriculture," [renewable energy specialist Stephanie] Page said. "A lot of folks have completed projects already, but as energy prices go up, more people will look for opportunities."

On the energy efficiency side, operators have found ways to save through more efficient irrigation, greenhouse heating, lighting, pump and motor operation, and even milk cooling in dairies. On the renewable energy side, operators have harnessed solar, wind, small hydroelectric, and geothermal energy sources. Some producers have pursued biofuels. In many cases, the energy saved or generated on the farm is being used to run the operation. In other cases, a surplus of energy is used to provide power for others. What works best for an individual farmer or rancher depends on the type of operation and, to some extent, the tax liability. Accessing tax credits can make these kinds of projects worthwhile.

"Oregon has some of the best incentives in the country," said Page, who credits the 2007 State Legislature for adopting a comprehensive renewable energy package.

Among the programs available to producers is the Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit, which provides a 35 percent credit for energy efficiency projects, a 50 percent credit for renewable energy projects, and a pass-through option for businesses that don't have the tax appetite to use the credit themselves.

As states expand their small-scale renewable energy programs across the country, we’re learning that rooftop solar panels are only the beginning, especially in rural America. Some of the most exciting opportunities involve agricultural production, which uses scores of energy-intensive (or energy-producing) processes that can be re-thought and harnessed. Oregon is leading the way and proving that renewable energy is more than a pet project for urban progressives – it’s also a money-saving tool that’s helping more and more farmers stay in business.

The New York State Senate has been in the news lately after Republicans attempted to seize control of the chamber in mid-session. We still don’t know how that struggle will play out, but a demographics expert at Queens College has studied long-term trends and come to an inescapable conclusion: no Republican majority is likely to survive 2010 redistricting.

“There is a very large population growth downstate in New York City and Westchester and a very large decline upstate,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College, who conducted the analysis for The New York Times. “Basically, this is a rerun of 2000.”

(…)After the 2000 census, the Republican majority was able to minimize the impact of population losses in its upstate base in two ways, both of which survived legal challenges.

Generally, districts’ populations are not supposed to deviate by more than 10 percent. Inventive Republican mapmakers maintained their party’s edge in the 2002 election because when they redrew the district lines, they placed all the underpopulated districts upstate and most of the overpopulated ones in the heavily Democratic New York City metropolitan area. So they were able to cram more sparsely populated districts upstate.

In other words, faced with huge demographic shifts that favored Democrats, Republicans stretched their Senate gerrymander as far as they could in 2000 – and Democrats still took control by 2008. Ten years later, the very same demographic shifts still favor Democrats, but Republicans have run out of options for protecting their seats. Even if they regain control of the Senate, there simply isn’t a map that would keep them in power.

And with New York State investing millions of dollars to ensure an accurate Census count in the state (unlike in 2000, when urban centers like New York City suffered from chronic undercounting), it will be even more difficult for Republicans to cram Democratic voters into urban districts.

Yesterday marked a key victory for the equality movement when both the Delaware House and Senate voted to add sexual orientation to the state’s existing anti-discrimination law. Legislative Democrats quickly praised the action:

“I’m really thrilled that we finally got this done and we’ve added discrimination based on sexual orientation to the list of prohibited practices in Delaware,” said Sen. David Sokola, D-Newark North. “It feels good to be a part of any piece of legislation that is monumental in any way … and we’ve had a pretty productive year.”

When the bill goes into effect (and Democratic Governor Jack Markell has indicated he will sign it), discrimination against gays and lesbians will be outlawed in housing, employment, public works contracting, public accommodations and insurance transactions. This bill has been a long-time priority for Delaware Democrats, and yesterday’s success came just months after Democrats seized control of the State House and expanded its majority in the State Senate.

While a different kind of success from the marriage equality legislation that recently passed in New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, we are very proud that Delaware was able to take such an important step toward equal rights.

The Texas Observer has put together a list of the lawmakers who, "notably opposed—or bravely ­championed—the best interests of the good folk of Texas at the 81st Legislature."

Rep. Garnet Coleman, a DLCC Board Member, features prominently on the tally of those working for the peoples' interest:

For those who follow Texas politics, Garnet Coleman and the Children’s Health Insurance Program have become nearly synonymous. Perhaps no recent government program has benefited working families as much as CHIP, which provides low-cost coverage to families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but still can’t afford private insurance. And no lawmaker in the state has nurtured and protected the program since its inception in 1999 as fiercely as Coleman. This session, Coleman once again fought the good fight, sponsoring a bill to expand CHIP to 80,000 more Texas children. He pushed the bill through the House, only to see it die in the Senate. Coleman tried to resurrect the proposal right through the session’s final hours. He didn’t win this one. But Coleman will surely return in two years with another CHIP bill.

Rep. Coleman has also been a powerful advocate for higher education and rural health care.

As for those who the Observer describes as opposing the peoples' interest -- well, all five of those legislators are Republicans.

Is anyone surprised?

Michigan Republicans have followed their ideological peers in Virginia by blocking a vote on a bill to accept $140 million in federal stimulus money for the state’s unemployment system. Like the Virginia bill, the Michigan legislation would have allowed some laid off part-time workers to receive benefits as a condition for accepting the federal funds.

Democrats slammed the Republican Senate leaders for blocking the plan, which would have boosted the local economy and helped thousands of Michigan families weather the recession:

State Senate Democratic Leader Mike Prusi said the Senate should act before beginning a two-week break.

"These bills have sat long enough," says Prusi, "Thousands of people are going without unemployment benefits because we refuse to act in this chamber, and I think now is the time to act before the we break for the summer, before we let these families go without the unemployment benefits that support them and support their children."

Republican behavior on this issue is especially infuriating because unemployment funding is such a major concern for the state. Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country, and the state’s unemployment system is more than $2 billion in debt -- far and away the heaviest debt burden of any unemployment system in the country. And the money to fix the system simply doesn’t exist because Michigan has seen catastrophic declines in sales, income, and corporate tax revenue since the recession began.

Michigan voters should be outraged that Republican senators won’t set aside partisanship and ideology to help their state. Instead, they’re determined to reject $140 million in federal money in the middle of a recession that’s hitting Michigan harder than any other state.

A recent report by Feeding America found that one in every five Missouri children was living in hunger.

For that reason, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services has a Summer Food Service Program to provide meals to underprivileged kids. Each meal costs the state about $2.50.

This month, Republican State Rep. Cynthia Davis -- the current chair of the Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Children and Families -- questioned whether the program was, 'warranted' in a commentary about a press release sent out by the state government touting the meal program. In a newsletter to her constituents, she wrote:

Who’s buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is warranted [...]

Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break.

It really is all about increasing government spending, which means an increase in taxes for us to buy more free lunches and breakfasts. Parents get the same food stamp allotment regardless of how many extra meals are being provided to their children over the summer. This equates to an increase in taxpayer funded food programs.

That's right -- hunger can be a "positive motivator" for children.

Those comments have twice this week earned Davis the title of Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World:

Davis' arguments have also been rebutted by the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who pointed out that, "the number of poor Missouri kids who qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches [rose] by 8.3 percent this year, well above the national average."

As the editorial rightly noted, the chair of the special committee on children and families ought to understand basic facts about the needs of children and families in her state.

That's why Democrats in the state are trying to get Davis stripped of her position.

In a letter to Republican House Speaker Ron Richard, Minority Leader Paul LeVota argued that Davis' views were, "Dickensian" and that keeping her as chair was "an endorsement of her offensive views by you and the House Republican Caucus."

UPDATE:

The Missouri House Democrats are all over this story. Follow their updates here!

Republicans right now are doing everything they can to prove they’re out of touch. Case in point?

A Republican state senator in Arkansas has demanded the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. Specifically, he claims that popular elections have somehow made senators “less responsive to the people,” as the Associated Press described his comments.

For those unfamiliar, the 17th Amendment requires the direct election of U.S. Senators (prior to ratification in 1913, senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures). Amazingly, the Arkansas Republican who proposed repealing the amendment is also a rumored US Senate candidate. And since Arkansas Democrats hold leads of 72-28 in the State House and 27-8 in the State Senate, repealing the 17th Amendment would just about end any chance of anyone from his party winning a U.S. Senate seat.

But despite the Republican’s obviously flawed logic, the 17th Amendment is a source of some interesting academic debate –- particularly for us at the DLCC. Following our success in the 2008 elections, Democrats had complete control of 27 state legislatures and controlled one legislative house in another 8 states. If US Senators were chosen by legislators in the same proportion, Democrats would hold a 62-seat majority (a rough count, to be sure, as an exact estimate would involve many more variables than simple chamber control).

In a more abstract sense, some have argued that the 17th Amendment irreversibly undermined federalism by severing the only direct link between state governments and federal policymaking. Senators would be less likely to preempt state laws, for instance, if lawmakers back home could fire them at the end of their terms. At the same time, popular elections are a much more transparent process for choosing such powerful officials.