[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 45°F  
River stage: 20.17 ft. Rising
Wednesday, Apr. 1, 2015

In 8th District GOP primary, Emerson again faces Parker criticism of voting record

Sunday, July 29, 2012

U.S. Rep Jo Ann Emerson mingles at a gun show Saturday, July 21, 2012 in Cape Girardeau.
(Fred Lynch) [Order this photo]
Jo Ann Emerson felt compelled to ask the question of her friend: "Sue, how did you know?"

Over dinner with several Republican colleagues last week in Washington, D.C., Emerson directed her query at U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, who had announced just six months before that she would not seek re-election. Myrick, a former mayor of Charlotte, had come to Congress in 1995, just two years before Emerson was sworn in for the first time. Both had the distinction of being the first Republican woman to represent their respective states in Congress.

Now, Myrick was calling it quits, prompting Emerson's question. Myrick's answer was this: She "just knew" that the time was right to walk away.

The response was one that Emerson said left her frustrated and seemingly without insight. But when Emerson -- the longest serving Republican to ever hold the 8th Congressional District seat and the third-longest ever -- was asked why she wants to seek another term, she used a variation on Myrick's theme in her response.

"Well, I don't just know," Emerson said. "I love my job, and there's a lot of work left to be done."

Bob Parker, Republican candidate for the 8th Congressional District, meets people at Homecomers Wednesday, July 25, 2012 in Jackson.
(Fred Lynch) [Order this photo]
While Emerson, 61, would like to hold on to the seat for a ninth term, three other challengers from across the political spectrum have designs on making sure that someone other than a Republican named Emerson represents the district for the first time in more than three decades. Emerson won election to the seat after her husband, Bill, died of cancer in June 1996.

In November, Emerson has every intention of facing political newcomer Jack Rushin, a chiropractor and Democrat from Poplar Bluff, as well as the returning Libertarian Rick Vandeven of Chaffee, who lost to Emerson in the 2010 general election.

But to get to them, she'll have to square off against another familiar challenger. Fellow Republican Bob Parker is also back in his second attempt to unseat Emerson. The rancher from Raymondville garnered about 34 percent of the vote in the Republican primary two years ago and insists he's built even more support that he believes will make him the Republican candidate when the votes are tallied Aug. 7.

Parker, 55, said he is basing that estimation on what he's been hearing from disgruntled conservatives as he racks up thousands of miles on his pickup in treks across the 30-county district, anchored in Cape Girardeau, that extends from the southeastern into the south-central part of the state.

"I don't think Jo Ann Emerson got the message that we in the 8th District want conservative actions in Congress," Parker said in written responses to questions.

Parker's message is similar to the one he spread in 2010. With a slogan of "Take America Back," Parker continues to attack Emerson's conservative credentials, hammering the Cape Girardeau Republican for her voting record over the years, such as supporting a $700 billion bank bailout, the Cash for Clunkers automobile sales incentive and embryonic stem-cell research.

For his part, Parker preaches fiscal restraint, the protection of property rights, support of the pro-life agenda and the loosening of government regulations. He also is not shy about talking about his Christian faith.

Parker knows it won't be easy. Emerson has handily won in her re-election attempts, most recently besting Democrat Tommy Sowers in 2010. The former Green Beret and Iraq War veteran was said to be her first credible threat. But despite that and more than $1 million in campaign funds, Sowers got just 29 percent of the vote.

Parker is also working again without much of a campaign treasury. He has raised $35,121 for this election, about $5,000 more than two years ago, according to reports on file with the Federal Election Commission. But Parker had spent most of that and had only $667 cash on hand through July 18, according to the filing. Emerson, meanwhile has receipts that topped $1 million, with $648,135 coming from political action committees and $427,640 coming from individual contributors. But she still has $230,241 on hand through the same period.

For his supporters, Parker said, this campaign is an investment in the future. His volunteers work tirelessly, he said, going door to door, paying for election letters in newspapers, walk in parades and place signs.

"We've put in a lot of sweat equity," Parker said. "You can't buy that commitment with lobbyist money or flashy advertising."

In an interview with the Southeast Missourian last week, Emerson refused to discuss Parker or his claims. But she and her campaign staff, at least internally, aren't acting as if Parker doesn't exist. The campaign has distributed anti-Parker fliers in attempt to call his positions on terrorism and drug laws into doubt.

Emerson's camp also has started running campaign ads on television station KSDK, the NBC affiliate in St. Louis. The station reaches into the district's new boundaries, expanded by redistricting after Missouri lost one of its nine congressional districts. While portions of Taney County were taken out, the district picked up all of Crawford and Ste. Genevieve counties and most of the southern and western parts of Jefferson County. According to voting patterns, the largely rural district will become slightly more Democratic but still be solidly Republican.

Parker says the fliers are an indicator that Emerson is all too aware that his grassroots efforts with tea party leanings is seeing a groundswell of support.

If Emerson herself is staying silent on the subject of her opponent, she is willing to talk about her record and what she sees as goals for the next two years. In the interview, Emerson spoke most about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Like many others, though, Emerson didn't call it that, instead opting for the informal name that even some Democrats are using -- Obamacare.

When the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly upheld the president's health care overhaul last month, Emerson said, she was surprised. She had been hopeful that it would be overturned. When it wasn't, Emerson herself presided over the U.S. House in its first vote to repeal it after the high court's ruling. In the months before that, Emerson and others in the House voted more than 30 times to strike it from the books.

As chairwoman of the financial services and general government subcommittee, Emerson said she is in a key position to block the implementation of the health care laws. Close to $2 billion has been cut from the budget of the Internal Revenue Service, the agency charged with enforcing it.

Fighting back against the health care laws, she said, will be significant, especially she sees it as a tax because the laws would create what is considered a penalty that people without health insurance would pay. Some estimates place the penalties at greater than $500 billion over the next 10 years. This November's election nationally will be equally crucial, Emerson said, and she's hoping the Senate picks up enough Republican seats to repeal each of the 21 "tax hikes" that the program is expected to create.

Emerson says there's much more that the next representative of the 8th District will have to deal with -- the growing bath salts problem, finalizing a farm bill, the possibility of U.S. Postal Service facility shutdowns and a highway bill.

But it's those challenges that keep her interested and engaged, she said, and the main reason she opted against a run at the U.S. Senate this year.

"Give me a challenge and I like trying to figure out how best to solve it," Emerson said. "I feel very strongly that I want to continue in this role. Sue told me that she just knew it was time for her. I don't know that it's just time for me. That's just how I know that it's not."

Emerson says there's a lot of work to be done. But it will be up to Republican voters next month to decide whether it's her -- or Bob Parker -- who will be their choice to do it.



Pertinent address:

Cape Girardeau, MO

Raymondville, MO

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Emerson didn't want to talk about Parker or her record huh?

Let's give her a vacation, she deserves one.

-- Posted by RightWing on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 8:04 PM

time for Jo to go run on the democratic ticket

-- Posted by QT-PIE on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 8:28 PM

For the record, Emerson did freely talk about her voting record, as was reflected in the story.

-- Posted by scott moyers on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 8:33 PM

Bob lies and thinks we should legalize drugs. http://semotimes.com/busted-parker-lies-...

-- Posted by workerdignity on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 8:51 PM

hey QT, why would she do that when she's been a Republican longer than Bob has?

-- Posted by workerdignity on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 8:51 PM

Where does MR Parker stand on the new farm bill and on disaster relief? Since neither program is mentioned in the Constitution, are these programs constitutional in his view?

-- Posted by VIKED on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 9:27 PM

Bob Parker... Against bailouts but took govenment subsidies.. Has it been mentioned he wants to repeal federal drug laws and give jury trials to terrorists? I need a rep. That can focus on the repeal of Obamacare not get in the weeds trying to legalize drugs..

-- Posted by SterlingCooper on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 10:23 PM

Emerson is a hard workier, Bob is a whiner...

-- Posted by SterlingCooper on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 10:27 PM

I've been following Mr Parker's campaign and asking questions. From what I can tell his campaign is pro life pro gun and anti regulations. From what I can tell Emerson is pro life pro gun and anti regulations.

Why would I want to trade in a senior representative with a proven record on these issues for one that has so far been all hat and no cattle?

So Southern Missouri can have less influence on government?

I'm leaning "thanks but no thanks" on mr Parker.

-- Posted by SamTheEagle on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 11:38 PM

I guess I'm just frustrated by the lack of specifics in Parker's campaign. He criticizes specific individual votes but only speaks how he would change government from the 35000 ft point of view.

One specific he or his campaign could email about is his record on farm subsidies. He does have a record there he could speak about. He was against giving GM and Chysler a hand, and he was willing to let our entire financial industry die from a lack of access to timely capital. So would he support assistance for drought relief? Does his fiscal restraint and free market laissez faire doctrine reach USDA disaster subsidies?

That's an issue, how many miles he's driven is rhetoric?

-- Posted by SamTheEagle on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 11:58 PM

First, I'd like to thank Mr Moyers on the well written article which I found to be very fair. I personally am supporting Bob Parker for Congress against Ms Emerson. Her current voting rating with the Heritage Foundation is a 44% conservative rating. To put that in perspective, another rep here in Missouri, Todd Akins (running for Senate) had an 82%. Why in the world do we have a representative in Southeast Missouri that has an almost 40% percent difference from a Rep up in the St Louis area? This is a very conservative district. She is no longer representing the views and the values of this district which is why I'm supporting Bob Parker, who will!

-- Posted by Fiscal Conserative on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 1:03 AM

Bob Parker for congress time for a change.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 5:31 AM

For the record, Emerson did freely talk about her voting record. Yes, The few she loves to tout. No mention of the ones that put her more in line with the Democratic party. Funny how the Parker haters only spout off about the same couple issues that were proven false about Parker. Let's see, fiscal restraint and follow the Constitution or bath salts! I'll have to ponder that one! I'm voting Bob Parker!

-- Posted by rbburnett on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 6:11 AM

Sorry JoAnn but it is time for youn to go. I supported and voted for both Bill and you in every election. Your record is no longer one I can support. It is time to give a true conservative a chance to help fix things. I and all my family are voting for Bob Parker.

-- Posted by john79t on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 6:46 AM

Status Quo, heck NO! Emerson must go along with all incumbents. Send her home to Maryland where she came from. I personally support any effort to decrimnalize drugs as this so called war has gotten us nowhere except billions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives lost. Its beyond time we get the Federal Government out of our lives and give the States back their Sovereignty given them by our Constitution. Those of you who disagree are nothing but couch potatos and sheeple who have no problem allowing the Fed to run you off a cliff. I for one am tired of being held hostage by a corrupt and criminal Federal Government and it's archaic lawmakers. Bob Parker has my vote.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 7:00 AM

How come nobody ever does a story on why bob's voice cracks so much or why he sounds soprano when he gives a speech? Or his foreign policy experience? Or his pompous air? Or why he hasn't run or released any polling other then staw polls among friends? Or why very few people want to write him checks? Or how it feels to play on Facebook hour after hour when most legitimate candidates have people to do that for them? Lots of stories yet to be written!!

-- Posted by bionicrotor on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 7:18 AM

The people and their liberty are being smothered under laws and regulations. The volume of output from Washington is beyond preposterous. Government has become a machine whose product is torment, tyranny, and slavery for the people it was intended to serve. Legislators are just a cog in this machine.

Those words sound harsh, but this is what this former "teacher's pet" honor student from the public education system, always impressed with the need to respect those in authority, has concluded.

Personally, I think the farm subsidy programs may be unconstitutional. They are just one of a myriad of ways the government has tempted the people, and I think that a government that tempts its people is an immoral government. Mr. Parker has shown he has insight into this most fundamental of problems--that of a government that corrupts the people. If the free people of this country have a future, it lies in this direction.

-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 8:33 AM

I've heard Bob Parker speak many times and have never heard anything described by bionicrotor. In any case lets say it's true. What does that have to do with anything. And his Pompous air? That's absurd. And Polls. First why should he release any? Has Emerson released any of hers? Why would they do that in any case? And frankly the only poll that matters is the one done August 7th. Bob and those that support him are out working to get elected and not wasting time on polling. I don't understand why you even wrote that it's so silly. And why don't people want to write him check. I guess you are referring to the $30,000 or so that was received in donations. Sure, Emerson gets tons of money from the special interest groups, the pacs etc. Sure she was having very expensive fundraising dinners in DC where people there were paying big bucks. Sure as an incumbent it's much much easier to raise money. Yes the special interest groups support her and she supports them. It's why she has a 44% conservative voting record from the Heritage Foundation. It's why she's been ranked the #3 most liberal Republican as reported by the Madison Project (I think they take the Heritage Foundation score and then add in how conservative the district they come from is). And Facebook? Why shouldn't a candidate use social media. But you act like he's on it 24/7. I see some posts from him but not many and besides how long does it really take to put up a quick post. I've probably taken more time on this single post then he does usually all day. And again why should he have OTHER people do that for them. Actually that smacks me of being pompous for you to suggest that other should. Yeah Emerson has a paid staff to do that for her. That sure makes her legitimate doesn't it.

-- Posted by Fiscal Conserative on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 8:37 AM

Thanks for the insight, GivemeLiberty. I,too, suspect that MR Parker believes the farm bill subsidies are unconstitutional. Any other view would be inconsistent. Thanks for the confirmation.

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 8:49 AM

[When] asked why she wants to seek another term,

"Well, I don't just know," Emerson said.

-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 8:54 AM

The Farm Bill is entirely too complicated to continue as it is. Parker's stand on it is that the nutritional programs, nearly 80% of the entire bill, and the ag policies and programs MUST be separated so they can be honestly debated. What is wrong with that position?

It's a fact that there is federal law in place that activates subsidy payments IF farmer's do not receive parity.

Parity is achieved by having good ag policy that allows farmers to profit from their labor and controls consolidation of markets and by requiring the agencies to actually enforce the anti-trust laws that are on the books!

Look at how much Emerson has spent versus Parker. Who do you think can better guard the money you send to Washington?

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:04 AM

We all know the Farm Bill will never be separated as Dreen recommends and, if it were, so many suburban and urban votes in Congress would be lost that it would never pass. So, Parker is against the bill as currently configured. Also, parity is not in the current law and is not being proposed. Not an ag expert, but parity sounds like socialism to me. Now, it's off to church.

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:16 AM

I like this taxpayer trip she took to a Scottish castle with her colleagues and staff. Renting Mercedes and buses at a daily cost of $2,500 and one big room converted into a lounge with fully stocked bar for them. Flying on government jets!


No wonder she loves her job! How's that for a subsidy?

-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:24 AM

"Not an ag expert, but parity sounds like socialism to me. Now, it's off to church."

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:16 AM

No, you NOT an ag expert. Obviously.

-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:29 AM

By the way. I honestly believe that Bob Parker will win the Republican Primary. The winds of change are blowing and without a doubt people are fed up with Congress and the President. The sleeping giant is paying attention now and considering making other choices. Those politicians that are arrogant enough to assume that they don't have to work to get elected like they have in the past are destined to discover the errors of their arrogance.

-- Posted by Fiscal Conserative on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:41 AM

Hello, I have tried to steer clear of writing too much in these comment sections after articles because it just seems like a lot of arguing to me. However, this article is decent and I want to share my opinion on the matter of Emerson verses Parker. I have always voted for Emerson, but this year I am not going to. In the past, I have been so proud to see a woman like JoAnne representing Southeast Missouri. I have heard of people saying how she did something specifically for them several years ago. That is a pretty neat thing and it is a good thing, but I can't ignore the actions of congress these last few years. They have been grid-locked on some extremely serious issues that have inevitably affected everyone. She is in that group of people and I feel it would be irresponsible to support the same old ways that aren't working. I'm not saying she's a bad person or anything like that, I'm just saying that it really is time for a change and I hate that for her but it is what it is I suppose.

The thing I like about Mr. Parker and his wife for that matter is that they take the time of day to talk to people. There is something special about that. They are genuine and you can hear it in their voices and in person when you see him speak or meet him in person. I feel that our area will be heard much more by someone like Mr. Parker if we elect him. That is extremely important. If you watch any of the videos on his website- they are all obviously very low budget but if you listen to the passion the man has for trying to do something different, it's impressive. One of his video discusses reading the bills- I like this one. He talks about how congress members often get stacks of pages to read before they vote but it's not happening and in turn they vote on bills they haven't read and guess who that could impact? It impacts we the people. He wants to read the bills in their entirety allow the voters to also review and then offer our opinions on the matter before he votes. That is common sense.

Another point I want to discuss is the use of the misleading information in regards to Mr. Parker's stance on the drug issue. I was there at the same place Mr. Parker was that day and witnessed the whole thing; the man is not for legalizing drugs. It was obvious to me and many others who were there to hear Mr. Parker come to talk. He was presented with several questions on this matter. He repeated the same thing more than once that he did not like the idea of legalization of drugs because he knew friends who had suffered tremendously in this area. Mr. Parker's stance is more similar with the view of many constitutional conservatives and that is: the issue is a state's issue rather than a federal issue. He didn't go any further than that- there really wasn't much of a story there but I guess someone thought it was!

Furthermore, it was interesting to me that the idea of this being a state's issue from the Emerson supporters was such a bad thing surprised me a little. Anyone can read the constitution and see where it supports states having the power to make their own laws and so forth. I really thought as a conservative, the Emerson team would have been more on board with this seeing as a lot of really true conservatives take pride in upholding the constitution.

Finally I just want to say that Mr. Parker really does seem to be for the people and it would be very nice to change things up and have our area represented more accurately in Washington.

-- Posted by Angela Pearson on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 10:30 AM

Thanks to Scott Moyers for well written, straight forward article & to Angela Pearson for her thoughtful response. Jo Ann has been a fairly decent representative but, I believe, her time has come & gone. We need someone who will fight to contain this out of control spending & regulating. Emerson's record does not indicate she understands this concept. Mr. Parker has fought hard for property rights & is not afraid to speak his mind. We simply must change the atmosphere in D. C. & that can't be done if we keep sending the same people over & over! We can not solve all our problems by throwing more money at them. We need new approaches not the same old same old.

-- Posted by Lettie on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 12:22 PM

Folks, term limits would solve a lot of these problems. 12 years each in the house & senate with no pensions and no life time health benefits. They would come under the same laws the average blue collar works comes under.

-- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 12:34 PM

Would you hire a plumber to cut your hair? Would you let a chef conduct surgery on your heart? Didnt think so. So why would you even consider electing a man that has no or very little political experience. Career politician, can one of you Parker supporters please explain why having an experienced professional is a bad thing.

-- Posted by DennisRodman on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 12:51 PM

Parity is an attempt to write 1919 farm prices into law.

It is the antithesis of free market.

If that is what Mr Parker supports it is inconsistent with his campaign speeches.

But then again he is opposed to government subsidies but has taken them himself. He believes federal drug laws are unconstitutional but claims he doesn't want to decriminalize them. He claims to be better able to force the corps of engineers to rebuild the birds point levee at the same time his campaign threatens the corps with an FBI investigation over yard signs.

-- Posted by SamTheEagle on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 1:04 PM

So tell me DennisR, what did Emerson do before deciding to run for office after her husband died?

As I recall she married Bill in 75' and raised children. She is NOT from Missouri and has been riding on Bill's coattail ever since. She like many, has forgotten where she is from and who put her in the lucrative position she is in. I agree with Howdydoody, TERM LIMITS! and a much reduced retirement benefit. Since when was being a politician meant to be a career with FAR better retirement and health care than their constituents?

Experienced? perhaps! Professional, hardly!

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 1:11 PM

Term limits are a good idea.

The first bill Mr. Parker will introduce is:

"The Congressional Reform Act"

*Immediate 10% pay cut for Congress

*No Tenure / No Pension

*Congress(past,present and future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

*Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

*Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

*Congress must abide by all the laws they impose on the American people.

*All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void, effective immediately.

+Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work.


Mr. Parker does support term limits. IMHO, I think if you stop all the benefits they are getting, they won't want to stay so long.

-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 1:34 PM

Sorry, Sam, you are wrong on parity.I'm not talking about 1919 at all.

It was the work of one of the most effective and intelligent economic analysis ever done (Carl Wilken) and passed into law in the Stabilization Act of 1942, that allowed farms to actually become profitable WITHOUT subsidies under HONEST parity....not the RIGGED parity that the USDA has employed as a type of governmental mathematics to prop up further consolidation for their corporate partners for longer than I have been alive.

And wow....Bob took $1700 in 1996 as a livestock disaster relief help. So 16 years ago, in a lifetime of farming, he took a little bit of not really helpful help.


Compared to Emerson, who spent more than that much of your money EACH DAY on her taxpayer funded drinking trip to Scotland:


===It's a non issue.

Your comments really indicate just WHY the Farm Bill has got to be completely examined and debated honestly.

Sam, Have you ever taken any subsidy money? Just curious.

Also, Viked, your comments are a prime example of why these issues must be separated. Too much "holding hostage"goes on and has caused us to arrive at the very sorry state of affairs we are in.

If Congress is unwilling to actually do their job, and address things at minimum of one subject at a time, then we need to put people there who will do that job.

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 1:56 PM

Sorry Dreen. Didn't realize you were referring to HONEST parity. Thought you were referring to the commonly understood meaning of the word: when it was the basis of our agriculture policy (ie the 20s).

-- Posted by SamTheEagle on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 2:25 PM

It's ok. I wasn't actually clear enough about what I was referring to. I guess I better define the parity I mean when I use the word. Would you prefer Wilken's parity?

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 2:43 PM

Stabilization Act of 1942. So it is government involvement (stabilization) in the marketplace. Does MR Parker really support that or does he think it is unconstitutional? How do you pass any farm bill without urban/suburban support? It's great to dream, but at some point we must deal with reality in order to get get any relief for farmers.

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 2:55 PM

BTW, Dreen, "the Stabilization Act of 1942" was formally entitled "An Act to Amend the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942..." The Stabilization Act authorized the president to issue executive orders applying to prices, wages and salaries throughout the economy. Glad to know Parker supports this socialistic intrusion into our economy, and does not support the current farm bill. (source: wikipedia) Thanks for the insight on MR Parker's views.

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 3:04 PM

Uh oh, VIKED. You might want to put your waders on. You're walking in deep waters now.

-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 3:44 PM

Not as deep as the waters MR Parker walked in when he claimed, as an expert on the Constitution, that all federal criminal laws pertaining to drugs are unconstitutional. You see, I am not a candidate and never claimed expertise on agriculture. Just trying to understand why Parker thinks our ag policy should relate back to price controls in the 1940's. I am confused. Maybe MR Parker can explain himself rather than relying on surrogates.

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 4:19 PM

I hope you are ready for an education, Viked. You should have simply stopped with "I am not an ag expert". That was a true statement.

Why doesn't Emerson answer questions herself instead of using..."surrogates"?

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 4:35 PM

Speaking of deep water... http://semotimes.com/busted-parker-lies-...

-- Posted by SterlingCooper on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 4:57 PM

It would be nice to know if Bob supports any of the relief efforts for this drought that might be included in this farm bill. His statements in that past lead me to think that he would not. That is a scary thought considering this entire district runs on agriculture. Nice to see Hannes and Dreen making comments too. I hope you guys are doing more research on this than you did our levees. You guys and Parker lost all credibility with my people over your complete disregard for the facts. I'll be voting for Emerson in November, but this Democrat is tempted to pull a ballot in August just to vote against the Nut Parker.

-- Posted by Mudder on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 5:34 PM

Misinformation regarding ag parity appears to dominate here. Not surprising but certainly unnecessary. Particularly because it should be discussed publicly. An honest, useful discussion requires that opinions be opened for revision in the light of actual historical facts. For example there was no ag parity program in the 1920s. Nearly all the other statements made above regarding parity are off-base as well. The key point about the ag parity policy (when it was operating properly) is that it wasn't strictly an "ag" program but was actually a "national solvency" program. That is what we could use today. Here's the main concept: "If the price of raw materials, at the first point of sale, is in balance with the costs of labor and capital in the rest of the economy, you cannot have a depression."

-- Posted by NORMecon on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 6:00 PM

Good discussion. Starting to see some real ag policies being outlined. Still not clear on short term drought assistance.

Another item ive seen discussed an made me curious. What is Agenda 21? What impact has this agenda had on life in the united states. Mr Parker talks a lot about it, and I'm ashamed to say I've never heard of it.

-- Posted by SamTheEagle on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 6:21 PM

As I said, get ready for an education, please. I have ferreted out what amounts to a small booklet by Carl H. Wilken that clearly illustrates the tremendous importance of "Wilken Parity"...You can download a pdf here,


but you will need to click on the link to download it.

I have copied the end of the article, from 1974 below...If you really don't want to be confused with facts, then don't read it. If you want to understand a very large part of the reason we are where we are financially as a nation, this is a must read. This is the end of the treatise:


Everyone wishes to better his material welfare, but we forget that the wealth for expansion must be preceded by more production from the soil. The increase in production through an equitable price level must be permitted to expand the dollar income or market in direct proportion, if we are to enjoy the benefits of production increases.

The development of the United States clearly proves the importance of the price factor. In 1787, we had a population of approximately 3 million people. In 1929, we had a population of 120 million or roughly 6% of the population of the world. But by our conformity with the simple formula of production-times-price, we were generating 50% of the income of the world in terms of dollars - key factor in our whole expansion was our abundant supply of raw materials multiplied by a price level higher than the average world price.

Our production times a higher price level gave us a higher per capita income and a larger per capita market for goods. This, in turn, led to a higher level of savings and profits which in turn became a higher level of capital for expansion.

Let us illustrate this differential in terms of material benefits: in 1929, the Untied States had approximately one-half the miles of railroads in the entire world. We were producing and using one-half the steel production and driving one-half of the automobiles being produced in the world at that time.

In terms of per capita income at the present time we have over $2,300 as compared to $70 per capita in India, a nation much older than the United States. The question we face is set forth in the differential in incomes. Are we going to permit the same theories of "Free Trade" and "Free" markets, which long ago held back world expansion, reduce our price level to the average of the world? Or will we use our Constitutional authority to determine and strengthen the price of American production?

If we permit our price level to be determined by world buying power we will duplicate the 1929 depression and find ourselves losing $250 billion of the annual income we now have. This in turn would mean a world depression which would intensify the present condition of economic and political confusion.

The World Leadership We Should Provide

What other course can we take? We should use our economic system and maintain our price for raw materials in balance with wages and capital costs. From this as a solid foundation for continued prosperity, on an earned basis, we should provide the world leadership to bring about an equitable monetary measurement of new wealth or raw materials in backward countries. Without such a program the backward countries will not have the income to buy the products of industry or even earn the new capital for expansion.

Downward movement of raw material prices since 1951 has forced the United States to operate at a terrific loss. Unless this operating loss is corrected we will lead the world into another depression. If we permit this to happen will Divine Providence give us another opportunity? This is the real meaning of the quotation from Emerson, when he says, "It seems as if North America is the last effort of Divine Providence to help the human race."

The time to restore the price level for farm products and other raw materials to balance with wages and capital costs is now. Our annual operating loss has steadily increased since 1951 and at the present time is over $160 billion a year. We can't afford low-priced food and its resultant loss of 7 times the underpayment to agriculture, and keep on covering up our losses with new mortgages against future generations.

With an expansion of $512 billion in the total debt in the past 11 years, the time is later than we think."

Prepared by Carl H. Wilken Director of Research

National Foundation for Economic Stability

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 6:22 PM

Sam, Agenda 21 is a UN program that is called by that name or Sustainable Development. The main body of work describing the areas of control desired under AG 21 is available from the UN site. It is roughly 400 pages and forty chapters. It covers every aspect of human life. I suggest you read a few articles about it, and then if you have the intestinal fortitude read the sections on agriculture and land use in the actual document. Here is a good introductory article:


Btw, I absolutely must do other things, so don't take any lack of response as ignoring anyone.

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 6:43 PM

The constitutionality of the Farm Bill lies in a complex history evolving out of the last depression but is for the most part is predicated under the "general welfare clause" as are a multitude of sins proliferated by the Federal Government. The original intent as cited in the Federalist Papers expressly prohibited regulating farming. However under the revised Emergency Powers Act, see Butler decision, the USDA was granted authority over agriculture and in order to avoid a Fifth Amendment takings claim was and is by law required to provide parity prices in the marketplace. However the mandate in the enabling Act is no longer being upheld, and with politics as usual we as producers are on average 40% human based on the USDA published figures. At this level only accrued debt is possible for all involved. See http://www.normeconomics.org/ for more detailed information.

The current Farm Bill extends debt as part of the drought relief program. Government backed loans and more money for the banksters.

-- Posted by Paul Griepentrog on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 6:54 PM

Dreen--thanks for the help. Does MR Parker support Wilken's thoughts? Otherwise, what is the point?

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 6:54 PM

Hey Dreen, does Ron Paul agree with Wilkens?

-- Posted by workerdignity on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 7:37 PM

Viked, the point is the issue of parity. Parker agrees with the type of parity Wilken was actually able to establish as law. Do you?

Snopes, why don't you ask him? I don't know as I never discussed it with him.

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 8:05 PM

snopes, the question is: Do you understand parity ag policy? If not, try Griepentrog's link above. If you come to understand it and think it would benefit our nation (as it did from 1942 through 1952), tell your candidate to get it done. If they demur, find a candidate who is genuinely interested in the economic health of our nation.

-- Posted by NORMecon on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 8:20 PM

There ain't no "free" market--foreign nations all support their industries (and, farming is an industry). Our farmers/ranchers must compete--the question becomes "how much" subsidy for whom, etc. I used to vote for Jo, but no more. She is now part of the problem; time to go Jo. U rode a dead man's coattails too long; and got fat at the public trough along the trail...

-- Posted by Bearcat66 on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:16 PM

So Mr Parker would oppose the current farm bill proposal in the house and senate and would not vote for an extension? If no farm bill is approved we'd revert to the 1948 farm bill and parity.

That's one way to "take America back!"

-- Posted by SamTheEagle on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:17 PM

Here's a mind-bending bit of trivia: divide the national debt (I used $16.1 trillion, though Lord only knows what it really is) by 435 House seats...you see what share each house seat has of the national debt.

Those who understand averages will "get" the utility of this little exercise, and won't jump to say, "But that's not what 'this or that' Rep. voted for!"

On average, the "share" of the $16.1 trillion national debt for each position in the U.S. House is $37 BILLION dollars. Take a minute and let that sink in. Each House position has "gifted" the people of this nation, on average, $37 BILLION dollars of indebtedness, or $115 per person per House seat. Certainly more for some, less for others....but that puts it in perspective. How does that make you feel?

-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:38 PM

We finally find Parker's position on a matter of economic importance, assuming Dreen speaks for Parker. So much for worries about the free market and governmental meddling in the economy. How does this square with a balanced budget? Unless there are huge government subsidies, wouldn't such price and production controls increase food costs?

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 9:51 PM

Do you understand the word restoration?

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 10:52 PM

Oh, I forgot, do you understand the 20 pages I supplied for your education?

-- Posted by Dreen on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 10:54 PM

I's like to know what Ms. Emerson's position on the farm bill is. Does anybody know?

Does she believe that farmers ought to receive a decant price for their products?

How about you VIKED?

-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 11:06 PM

Are you listening Jo? Too late.

-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 11:09 PM

16 years and you still don't get it? Why should we send you back to D.C.? "I don't just know".

-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 11:26 PM

I am not a candidate and never claimed expertise on agriculture. Just trying to understand why Parker thinks our ag policy should relate back to price controls in the 1940's. I am confused. Maybe MR Parker can explain himself rather than relying on surrogates.

-- Posted by VIKED on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 4:19 PM

I don't remember anyone accusing you of being a candidate here, but thanks for outing yourself to everyone Jo Ann.

Sterling, nice to see you've changed your avatar, you guys are so transparent it's laughable.

Bob Parker has fully stated his position on the "Farm Bill" so called. I'm sort of baffled by all the talk of assistance to farmers in it that you claim to support Jo Ann, yet any sort of assistance in this bill or anything relating to actual farmers in this bill represents less than 10 percent of the actual bill.

In fact, this is Obama's dream bill that will keep food stamps and alive and growing, at the expense of who? Our taxpayers, farmers, and ranchers that feed everyone? So this farm bill and the subsidies involved that you are discussing ad nauseum that make up less than 10 percent of this TRILLION dollar "farm bill" so called, is the answer to our prayers? Surely, you can do better Jo Ann. Well, given your record, probably not...

-- Posted by ddshea on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 11:26 PM

It sure would be nice if Ms Emerson was held accountable for her voting record and held town hall meetings to answer for her actions. If some of you actually looked for the truth and facts instead of the personal attacks on Bob Parker you would see someone that wants to bring Pride back to America and the 8th District of Missouri.

-- Posted by Copperdog on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 11:31 PM

Relying on surrogates REALLY!!? Anyone want to ask Josh Haynes how it feels to be a surrogate?? The guy earns his Money. Maybe he should be on the Ballot.

-- Posted by Copperdog on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 11:37 PM

Thanks to Jo Ann's generosity, he does in fact make very close to what our taxpayers pay Jo Ann, aside from all the perks that come with her position that she takes full advantage of, like getting her daughters Lobbying jobs for General Motors or Monsanto, or helping out the Unions her husband represents at every opportunity.

You can see what Jo Ann's number 2 Josh Haynes makes by going to this link. You didn't vote for him but he makes almost as much as we pay Jo Ann.


Really, a staffer making over 4 times what the average citizen in our district makes...Wow! Now, that's disgusting.

-- Posted by ddshea on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 11:55 PM

Ok, Viked, why do you, someone capable of spelling surrogate, insist on saying MR (no period, all caps) Parker? Rather incorrect, isn't it?

I notice you like to ask questions,but not answer them. Then throw up a bunch of tripe on subjects you yourself admit that you are "confused" about.

You also accuse others, who want farmers to profit, of being "socialist" because they desire ag policy wherein farmers profit from their labor, so the rest of the country can profit as well.

You say you have no expertise, then disparage others when they offer a solution that you are "confused" about, and yet the solution offered is historical proof of it's success....but you won't even read it, because you don't want to be confused by the facts.

The question for you, Viked, and all other Emerson supporters, is do you want farmers to be able to profit from their labor? Or are you happy importing more than half of our food? How's this massive reduction in farmer's working out for the nation?

Answer MY questions this time. Emerson's record speaks for itself.

-- Posted by Dreen on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 12:26 AM

Please, if you actually care at all about this topic, try to understand it and read this post again, carefully:

The constitutionality of the Farm Bill lies in a complex history evolving out of the last depression but is for the most part is predicated under the "general welfare clause" as are a multitude of sins proliferated by the Federal Government. The original intent as cited in the Federalist Papers expressly prohibited regulating farming. However under the revised Emergency Powers Act, see Butler decision, the USDA was granted authority over agriculture and in order to avoid a Fifth Amendment takings claim was and is by law required to provide parity prices in the marketplace. However the mandate in the enabling Act is no longer being upheld, and with politics as usual we as producers are on average 40% human based on the USDA published figures. At this level only accrued debt is possible for all involved. See http://www.normeconomics.org/ for more detailed information.

The current Farm Bill extends debt as part of the drought relief program. Government backed loans and more money for the banksters.-Griepentrog, above.....

-- Posted by Dreen on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 12:30 AM

Sure, I want farmers to make a decent living. Just don' t understand how MR Parker thinks so many programs are not just wrong, but unconstitutional (federal war on drugs), but this complex proposal, with all the government bureaucracy attached to it is constitutional. This is an idea which Bob has apparently come up with, one week from the election. This idea has never been part of the farm bill discussion until yesterday. How would I know what MS Emerson's position is on something that has never been discussed in this Congress. I don't even know what MR Parker's position is for sure. He won't say.

-- Posted by VIKED on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 6:52 AM

Hey guys, do you think you could turn down the testosterone level a few notches? You all are arguing about a 1940s policy that came about during FDR. Are you sure you want to go on record putting Bob in favor of price/supply controls?

-- Posted by riverchick on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 7:23 AM

Butler decision ruled the old AAA was unconstitutional in 1936.

Following the "Switch in time that saved the nine" in 37 the court found a new version constitutional under the Commerce Clause. (Wickard v Filburn).

I care about the prices farmers get (a lot). But I also believe manipulating supply to artificially raise prices for consumers is worse than direct government subsidies. Subsidies are transparent and the benefits better targeted to producers and not middle men.

I am not critical of support for farmers or other businesses or even hungry individuals. I'm just trying to understand Mr PArker's logic in deciding when such help is constitutional and when it's not.

Here is the only theory i can see: When Mr Parker and his coffee shop friends can get the federal $$$ it's patriotic spending, when it's poor people in cities or temporary loans to keep MILLION employed and paychecks financed its an unconstitutional TREASON?

-- Posted by SamTheEagle on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 7:41 AM

This is Bob's position, and it was stated earlier--other opinions expressed here are the opinion of the posters---:

"The Farm Bill has become too complicated. The nutritional assistance programs absolutely must be separated from the agricultural issues. It is impossible to have honest debate on agriculture policy and programs when they are mixed up with food stamps and school lunch programs. To restore access to markets and a level playing field in agriculture, and to cut waste and abuse in the SNAP programs, we have to separate the issues."

To which you asserted that it couldn't happen because the urban and suburbanites would never vote for separating the issues. Just trying to refresh your memory. I know it won't happen if people like Emerson keep going back to DC. I know Bob understands Wilken parity to a greater extent than Emerson, but the two main subjects of the Farm Bill have to be separated to actually be examined by Congress.

So, why the MR (all caps, no period)?

How's this massive reduction in farmer's working out for the nation?

Do you understand the word restoration?

Did you read the booklet I posted the link to?

Do you want to understand? Or do you just want to throw up a load of dust (we might have to call in the EPA) and remain confused?

-- Posted by Dreen on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 7:49 AM

The court also upheld that Obamacare is Constitutional because it is a tax. Wickard vs Filburn knocks down to two major points: The USDA may regulate that which it subsidizes, and even more frightening, the determination that the USDA had the authority to regulate Filburn is based on the fact that he grew wheat he fed to his own livestock, had he not grown that wheat he would have had to buy wheat; therefore, by growing wheat for his own cattle he affected interstate commerce giving the USDA jurisdiction.

So, change wheat to tomatoes and you can see why this decision of a SCOTUS loaded intentionally by FDR to create a platform for his future dependency state is such an assault on all of us.

Here's a short excerpt from a very good explanation of the case:

None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Wickard's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.

The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.

The court in effect ruled that growing crops on one's own property, to feed one's own livestock, while neither "interstate," nor "commerce," is "Interstate Commerce." As to whether this ruling "bears any fidelity to the original constitutional design," University of Chicago Law School Professor Richard Epstein comments:

"Wickard does not pass the laugh test."

This "economic effects" theory of the regulation of interstate commerce resulted in every area of American life being subject to regulation under the clause of the U.S. Constitution empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

This ruling that purely local activity which is not commerce can be regulated by Congress under the "interstate commerce" clause meant that Congress' power to regulate every aspect of American life was essentially without limit.


-- Posted by Dreen on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 8:06 AM

So, Dreen--I could not get the paper to come up, so I have not done my homework. But, if MR Parker is such a strict constitutionalist, then reliance on the General Welfare clause seems extremely weak. Sounds like an Obama constitutional theory--straight out of Kenya. By the way, in his quote Bob does not mention "parity."

-- Posted by VIKED on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 8:06 AM

The USDA's activities are established as being in the general interest under the guise of "the general welfare clause" within the body of the law.

Wickard v. Filburn decision was predicated on the unestablished theory that by reducing supply profits would be increased, which although presented in the case was never supported by findings of fact. The case rested upon the producer for having received a "benefit" of the program he had voluntarily signed up for, forming a contractual agreement. Parity was in force at the time. If a similar case were to arise today the claims made previously would not apply due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction predicated on the simple fact that the USDA has failed the requirements of the original enabling act and in fact would be ripe for a fifth amendment takings claim due to a lack of parity by individual producers as well as the states themselves.

What happened in the past matters? The economic loss to the nation's agricultural producers in direct compensation over 58 years amounts to more than $8.135 trillion. Absent the movement of this primary earned income through the normal progress of

exchange, processing, distribution and consumption, our national economy has

suffered, over the period, the loss of around $57 trillion earned income. This is

approximately equivalent to the current total of public and private debt

obligations of the nation which have been borrowed against "future" earnings

which cannot materialize without 100% parity agriculture. Failure by every

administration since 1953 to satisfactorily perform the compensation plan adopted

by Congress gives rise to the claim of economic damage to agricultural producers

in the amount of $8.135 trillion, as a result of private property taken in the

national public interest.

Then calculate the lost state income tax revenues. Parity to raw material producers floats all boats.

-- Posted by Paul Griepentrog on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 9:45 AM

More misdirection and obfuscation from "Team Emerson". Surprise, surprise. This "farm bill" in it's current form is garbage, just like Emerson's voting record.

She has come out for this TRILLION dollar monstrosity that is geared less than 10 percent to actually providing any assistance towards our farmers and ranchers. This isn't any real shock to the system for anyone who looks into Ms. Emerson's record.


What's another Trillion in spending that doesn't help those the bill is supposedly designed to help? It doesn't matter if it's continuously raising the debt ceiling, the Wall Street bailouts, socializing General Motors or doubling the size of the Department of education with no child left behind, Emerson loves spending our money. When questioned about this spending spree, like her doubling the size of the Department of Education, she says herself it was a mistake and failed because we didn't spend Enough money.


16 years in Congress and 16 Trillion in debt. You've spent more than enough of our money, our children's money, and grandchildren't money Jo Ann.

Emerson subscribes to the mantra on the Hill, well, if a bill has 70-80 percent of what we want, then that's a victory. It's not. It's this type of compromising that has gotten us in the situation we are in today.

If you bake a cake and put a tiny piece of feces in the mix, would you eat it, knowing that's in there? Better yet, that you allowed it to be put in there? I mean it's only a tiny bit of feces. It's mostly cake, 99 percent cake in fact.

I apologize for the analogy but this is the essence of Washington DC ideology of which Ms. Emerson fully subscribes to. Don't eat the cake she mixes for you Missourians. Get out and vote in the primary on August 7th.

-- Posted by ddshea on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 9:48 AM

If Jo Ann wanted to keep the subject on her record, she wouldn't have her folks passing out the political smear-job flyers at Jackson Homecomers and throughout the district regarding the bogus marijuana charge that they are making:


-- Posted by bbollmann on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 10:13 AM


Not only is Jo Ann Gladney's charge about drugs against Bob Parker bogus, it is also slander. She used a lie created by a convicted felon and then to make matters worse, committed mail fraud when she illegally used a trademark WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE OWNER and sent thousands of the flyer through the mail. Although the owner of the trademark has said they will not pursue legal action (at least not at this time) it in no way dismisses the fact that Jo Ann (Emerson) Gladney is GUILTY OF MAIL FRAUD!

-- Posted by born right on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 10:41 AM

Multiple counts of Felony mail fraud are very serious indeed, should the organization in question choose to pursue that slam dunk of a legal case against "Team Emerson". I am more concerned however, about her treason against our nation typified by her clear voting record.


If that's not enough, it's Emerson failure to understand basic and simple economics. We cannot, contrary to her philosophy, spend our way to prosperity.

Economics is a lot more simple than those in DC and in Academia would want you to believe. Real wealth is physical and not fiat as it has become by today's standards.

All real wealth comes from the ground with the exceptions of knowledge acquired and information which are intangible but to the extent they are used to augment production capabilities, are likewise valuable.

When you boil everything else away from an economy you only have two types of jobs. Production and clerks.

The clerks (administrative or service jobs), are always parasitical to the real physical economy. To the extent that clerical jobs promote those working in production expedite the function of production, such parasitical relationships are mutually beneficial to an economy.

We do need people to create innovation in production to increase our capability to produce. People to provide the day to day service required to those working in production.

The problem in our country is that our government officials have sold the idea to the people that we can have an economy without real production. That is false and we are seeing the results of that flawed thinking now as our jobs have been pushed south of the border and overseas.

Once the parasite has consumed the host the "gig" is up. That's where we are at folks. We need to bring production, in all forms, back to this country if we want to return to any semblance of a sound economy.

-- Posted by ddshea on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 10:58 AM

What troubles me is, those of us who have told Ms. Emerson about these atrocities inherent in the status quo "Farm Bill", so called and the various other agencies with their onerous reglulations, all we have received for our trouble is a deaf ear from her and a blind eye to reams of documentation that has been delivered to her. All she has done is patted farmers and ranchers on the back and said she'd take care of it. USDA passes out subsidies right and left for the purpose of furthering their stranglehold on us via Wickert vs Filburn. Their desire is to own and control the wealth generated from the farming industry in this nation and destory it's ablility to feed itself. Meanwhile they smile and tell us they are just trying to keep us "safe".

Ms. Emerson is good at making appearances when it is convenient and passing out bandaids to cover up the wounds caused by the attacks from big ag corporations that have consolidated the markets and been allowed to break the law and in affect the backs of the very people who grow our food!

As cattle populations continue to dwindle, we cannot meet our own consumption needs in the US and must import from other countries. We have a similar problem with produce as well. Last time I checked, we are importing somewhere around 70% of the produce we consume. I realize there are some fruits we don't or can't grow here and if we want to eat them we HAVE to import those. But that's still a large percentage. We simply don't eat that many bananas.

The more we have allowed regulation, licensing, certification and consolidation, the less food we have grown. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. All wealth comes from the ground. If we create, as we have, an atmosphere that is overly burdensome for the people who grow food we squash the wealth creation by those people to the tune of Trillions of dollars. As Paul pointed out, since 1958 we have lost roughly 57 trillion dollars in the area food production and that's roughly equal to this nation's debt.


Have you ever asked why we pay people NOT to produce? Does THAT make sense?

So, Jo Ann, don't pee down our backs and tell us it's raining, just because we're in a drought here.

-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 11:43 AM

Emerson was a health insurance lobbyist. Can you tell? I disagree with repealing the affordable care act. There are too many people who need access to care and don't have it. Many would be willing to pay for insurance if they could afford it. There are a lot of places to cut back on what we as a country spend our money on without sacrificing the availability of health care to our citizens. For starters, no lobbyists allowed anywhere near congress and not allowed to contact them or buy them anything. Cut back on the benefits congress gets. Cut back on what they spend. Cut back on how long they meet. Lots more, but I don't think cutting back all government is the answer. If you want the services, you are going to have to pay for them. That includes us, the tax payers. If we want the roads fixed, or the railroads fixed or medicare or any other government service, then we will have to pay for them. We just have to be more careful about how it is done. How much does every CEO for a Part D plan make? One CEO usually makes hundreds of thousands of dollars and more. Multiply that by all the Part D plans that we have. Think of all the health care we could pay for if we weren't paying all those millions to CEO's. Wow. That is not effective use of our tax dollars. But Emerson is a lobbyist at heart and she wants the CEO's to get their money, so nothing will change. I would prefer to see one company manage those part D benefits and save all those dollars. Use our money more effectively.

-- Posted by BWM81 on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 11:48 AM


Here's a direct link to the pdf, 'Our American Heritage' you weren't able to get to:


Told you this was deep water. Hope that helps.

-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 12:30 PM

I know Bob reads this blog. Bob, what do you think about the Farm Bill? Are you for price controls? I would like some transparency.

-- Posted by workerdignity on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 12:54 PM

A lot of theory, no specifics as it impacts this Year's farm bill. I' m just not that theoretical. Sounds like government tinkering with the marketplace. If that is what MR Parker wants, so be it.

-- Posted by VIKED on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 1:20 PM

Gosh Viked, for one who openly professes lack of expertise in agriculture you sure seem to have a lot of opinions, based on your opinion, backed up by your additional opinions.

Can you clarify how government is not tinkering with the marketplace right now?

Seems to me like you just want to confuse things because you are confused. Wilken parity isn't theory, it is historical fact. Proven, valid and workable. But you don't want to be educated on what works, how it works and why it works, you just want to say "its theory".

Prove how your support of current (obviously failed) ag policy operating under continual debt increases with absolute price controls that benefit consolidators and continually reduce the number of American farmers is the best model.

Otherwise, just say "I don't just know" and leave it at that.

-- Posted by Dreen on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 2:03 PM

Neither you, nor I, Dreen, are running for anything. Who cares what we think? I anxiously await MR Parker's pronouncement from on high. Bye.

-- Posted by VIKED on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 2:07 PM

I've stated Parker's position on the Farm Bill repeatedly. That is his stance. You can scroll up and read it again if you have forgotten it.

Seems to me that if the people who are most affected by ag policy don't understand why it is failing as it is, then they have little ability to be heard by their representatives or affect positive revisions.

So, the point of the conversation regarding ag policy is because the once every five year Farm Bill is due. And it seems pertinent to address the issues as all of us will be affected by what happens with the Farm Bill either directly or indirectly.

Emerson is the one who will be voting on it and should be shaping it, but she (evidently) likes it as it is. Parker is very unlikely to be in office before this Farm Bill is completed. However, having been a dairy farmer, he understands the destructive nature of current ag policy and believes it should be debated apart from the nutritional programs. A very logical position, which apparently, most Emerson supporters eschew.

If there are no farmers, there is no food.

That's a pretty simple equation, isn't it?

-- Posted by Dreen on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 2:50 PM

VIKED, ETC. (Emerson staff)

You are not fooling any of us. We know WHO you are. Yes, I agree Jo Ann and all of you are "EXPERTS".

The true definition of an "expert" in real life is found by breaking words apart, as our old English teachers would say. An "ex" is a "has been" and a "spert" is a "drip under pressure".

After next Tuesday Jo Ann Emerson Gladney and her staff are going to be exactly that!

-- Posted by born right on Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 4:49 PM

Emerson was asked to sign a simple letter requesting the house leadership to bring legislation forward to defund Obamacare and she refused to sign this letter.


If you think Emerson is going to actually fight against Obamacare if sent back to DC after being part of the problem for 16 years. You are sadly mistaken.

Vote her out in the primary election on August 7th.

-- Posted by ddshea on Tue, Jul 31, 2012, at 6:15 PM

Anyone forget it was Jo Ann Emerson who cosponsored a bill to bailout union pension funds back in 2010? Not to mention she voted for TARP without even reading the bill (her admission). And when Joe Wilson stood up and called Obama out for lying (which indeed he was), she was quick to vote for Wilson's censure. Time for Emerson to retire and let someone with real backbone represent us in Washington. Emerson has failed.

-- Posted by Tired of Elite Washington on Wed, Aug 1, 2012, at 2:31 PM

August 7 cannot come soon enough.

-- Posted by VIKED on Wed, Aug 1, 2012, at 3:56 PM

VIKED (Emerson),

I'm sure the pressure is becoming more than you ever imagined, but August 7th is only the beginning!

-- Posted by born right on Wed, Aug 1, 2012, at 4:04 PM

You've got 6 days people of the 8th district. She what your 16 year representative has been doing in your name



Do your own research and vote your conscience on Tuesday, August 7th.

-- Posted by ddshea on Wed, Aug 1, 2012, at 6:41 PM

Isn't it charming how Ron Gladney, Union Lawyer and avid Democrat, shows up and snipes at patriots as "VIKED"?

-- Posted by BargeHoyen on Sun, Aug 5, 2012, at 12:15 PM


-- Posted by ddshea on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 7:30 AM

Anyone, who want's to see the truth about Jo Ann Emerson and who she has become and just what she's been up to in DC in your name, go to



Do your own research and vote your conscience tomorrow, August 7th in the Missouri State Primary.

-- Posted by ddshea on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 7:36 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Map of pertinent addresses
Related subjects