Throughout the session, United for Missouri members have played an active role in impacting legislation. We have seen nearly 25,000 emails sent to legislators by our members. This activity has seen several successful outcomes and mentions in committees and on the floor by various legislators!

Take, for example, the elimination of a $50 million federal grant for “upgrading the state’s Medicaid computer system”. Throughout the various grant documents, it was clear the system was to lay the groundwork for the Obamacare Insurance Exchange. Thousands of our members sent emails to their senators, and, as a result, the $50 million is not in the state budget for Fiscal Year 2013!

Another example UFM members’ influence is Senate Bill 464, sponsored by Senator Rob Schaaf (R-34). SB464 would place on the ballot a prohibition on the governor and unelected bureaucrats from establishing any insurance exchange without an action of legislature or vote of the people. It was the subject of our first action alert for the session and our last.

In our last action alert of the session, Missouri House One Vote Away from Approving SB464, Stopping the Governor and Unelected Bureaucrats from Bringing Obamacare Insurance Exchanges to Missouri!, we give our members the opportunity to weigh in one last time about the importance of SB464. We have had more than 1,200 emails sent so far the past couple of days.  More are needed!

As the last day of session approaches, the bill only needs one more vote to be placed on the ballot. Many procedural moves are being made on the bill, and we need to make sure that House members understand and know the support that exists for SB464!

If you have sent your email already – thank you! Please share the action alert with everyone on your contact list.

If you haven’t responded yet – there’s still time. It’s important that as many people as possible let their voices be heard on this important issue!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Our first action alert (Missouri Health Insurance Exchange Back in the News!) during this legislative session dealt with SB464.  Since the original action alert and blog postings, a number of other groups and organizations have also helped to raise the awareness of SB464.  Today we all get to celebrate the fact the bill is one step closer to becoming a reality.

The House Insurance Committee voted the bill out with no changes.  It now goes to the House Rules Committee and then the Speaker will put it on the calendar.  It is possible – although this is the budget week – that the bill could be voted on by Friday.  Representative Tim Jones, Majority Floor Leader, is carrying the bill and I’m sure will take every measure to see that it gets passed!

This year has been the year of the activist in the Capital.  Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty that didn’t happen and some things that shouldn’t have so far but all in all out – grassroots have had an impact. A short list of impacts are:

• You have brought SB464 this far in the process. It’s only a couple votes away from being on the ballot.
• You helped move a spending limitation bill – HJR43- farther than it has ever gotten.
• You STOPPED the $50 million federal grant that would have laid the groundwork for the Obamacare Insurance Exchange.

There are many more things we could list but none of them would have happened without you and your willingness to send emails and phone calls to your elected officials!

Grassroots activists are alive and well.  Most of all – they are effective!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports today that the Rams and the CVC continue to work on a deal that will make changes at the Edward Jones Dome. The lease agreement between the two requires the dome to be in the top 25% of National Football League venues in the country, or the team can walk after the 2o14 season. Sounds worthy enough, but as Matthew Hathaway reports in “St. Louis CVC says public can’t see Dome plan without Rams’ permission,” they don’t want you to know about how much it will cost taxpayers – at least, not yet.

You see, the lease agreement has a confidentiality clause.  The CVC claims it cannot release the info about the Rams’ proposal without the Rams’ consent, even though some portion of the improvements – likely the majority of them – will be paid for by taxpayers. The problem the CVC and Rams have is that Missouri has a state law known as the Sunshine Law, whereby the CVC – a public entity – is not allowed to keep this a secret.  Once the Rams make their pitch, the information should be made public!

It was all the rage around the country to have the public build nice new stadiums and domes for National Football League or Major League Baseball teams.  Missouri proved its middle-of-the-road stance when it funded the Trans World Airlines (TWA) Dome project – now the Edward Jones Dome – in 1995, but refused to go along with public funding of the new St. Louis Cardinals Stadium in the early 2000s.  But fear not – you may get your chance to pony up again to improve the dome!

This episode shows why “public” stadiums are a big mistake. As we can see from this report, one of the first casualties in these arrangements is transparency. While my friends at the Post don’t always understand the difference between private funds (such as those our members contribute to our organization) and public funds (those being used to pay for the Edward Jones Dome), it really is quite stark.

As taxpayers, we were not asked to support the $12 million annual payment the state makes on our behalf toward paying off the Edward Jones Dome bonds. St. Louis City and County contribute another $12 million a year. And, because it was necessary and “fair” to get the deal done, the state also gives $5 million a year to the Jackson County Sports Authority toward Arrowhead and Kauffman stadium funds. It is difficult to make the case that we are “voluntarily” providing these funds and not having them confiscated from us!

Now the CVC will be entertaining a proposal that will require more public funds and somehow determines that we the people have no right to know how much and for what until they and the Rams decide otherwise? Then they will be distraught and shouting about the sky falling when the public does not simply roll over and play dead when they and the Rams decide it’s time for us to know!

Another reason that “public”-owned stadiums are a bad idea is that there is no ownership from the tenant teams.  Oh sure, they will do what they need to do to make money, but when it comes time to make major improvements, they will simply walk if the public entity doesn’t give them what they want. If they owned the stadium, they would only make the decisions that would have a return for them. Instead, they want the taxpayer to make improvements that they themselves are not willing to pay for. Not a good deal for the taxpayers!

While it is a rare occasion indeed, I have to agree with the Post on this one – this information should not be kept from the taxpayers.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The budget process in the Senate did not take the traditional path. Senate tradition is that what comes out of the Appropriations Committee represents 99.9% of what the Senate passes back to the House. Then the Senate and House convene conference committees to work out the differences between the versions passed by each body. It didn’t quite work that way this year.

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed out budget bills that caused a number of problems with several senators.  We sent out an Action Alert (Urgent Action Required: Eliminate Obamacare Insurance Exchange Budget Funding!) regarding a line item that contained $50 million in federal grant funds that would include laying the groundwork for the Obamacare Insurance Exchange (Federal Grant Documents h/t Representative Ryan Silvey, House Budget Chair).  Grassroots activists from all across the state responded, and the “political heat” was acknowledged during the discussion of the issue!

Grassroots participation can have an impact!

A group of senators who were not satisfied with the status quo represented by the Senate Appropriations Committee bill versions coalesced and presented the Appropriations Chair a list of items that had to be addressed in order to avoid an unheard of filibuster on the budget. This list included the $50 million federal grant.

After several days of discussion and negotiations, the Senate Appropriations Chair drafted new versions of the budget and placed them into Senate Substitutes. These substitutes represented significant changes to the bills including the elimination of the $50 million line item! 

As you might imagine, there were some ruffled feathers over this “new” process. Near the beginning of the budget discussion last night, one senator derisively called the senators who sought these changes the “gang of 9.” I’m pretty sure most if not all of the senators involved wear that name with some pride.

I don’t agree with all the changes the “gang of 9″  supported, but overall they were trying to set the tone for future budgets – significantly reduce the dependency on the use of one-time funds to balance the budget! It’s a good message. You can let the “gang of 9″ know you appreciate their efforts in supporting elimination of the $50 million federal grant by clicking here.

Thanks to all of you who weighed in with your Senator.  Without your action the gang of 9 would not have had the support to accomplish the task.

Sometimes you win some, and sometimes you lose some. This was a big win!

Never underestimate the impact you can have by responding to an Action Alert. You can make all the difference!

Thank you!

Establishment Grant Application Cover Page

Establishment Grant Project Narrative

As you may recall, last fall, an attempt was made by unelected bureaucrats to establish the Obamacare Health Insurance Exchange. Senators stepped in and stopped this end-around. You can read more about it in Obamacare Insurance Exchange Comes Through Back Door in Missouri. The $50 million line item in the budget is the same grant – but for twice the dollars!

The fact that 71.1% of Missourians voted to reject the individual mandate of Obamacare is well known. You might think that this issue of establishing the Obamacare Insurance Exchange – in any way, shape, or form – would be pretty much settled. It’s not. Click here to take action now!

The House resoundingly refused to accept the $50 million grant. The Governor was not dissuaded by the rejection by the House and asked the Senate to add it into the budget. Unfortunately, the Senate Appropriations Chair included the $50 million in the budget bill that will be considered by the full Senate.Click here to tell your Senator to say NO to the Governor’s request and remove the $50 million from the Senate version of the budget! If it is removed, there will be no opportunity to add it back into the budget.

The Governor and his supporters deny that the $50 million – which includes the money from the aforementioned grant and actually totals $100 million over two years – has anything to do with establishing a health insurance exchange. Unfortunately, the facts contradict their statements.

The name of the grant is the “Health Insurance Exchange Establishment Grant.” Plain language shows not much “fuzz” on what the grant’s intent is meant to be.

The first part of the grant that was “almost” accepted by unelected bureaucrats also has several revealing statements about this “upgrade” to Medicaid computer systems. One statement is a brutally honest statement of intent: “Additionally, the Medicaid program will be building to varying degrees supporting infrastructures to facilitate the work of the Exchange.”

There is an old saying that “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” There is a lot of waddling and quacking going on regarding this issue when the Governor says it’s not related to the establishment of the health insurance exchange . . . yet the grant materials say it is!

The Senate will be taking up the budget THIS WEEK. This is your opportunity to let them know you do notsupport taking any action to establish the Obamacare Insurance Exchange. Click here to take action now!

There is no doubt that the state’s Medicaid computer system needs to be updated. But the answer is not taking Obamacare money to do it. I don’t know what kind of computer system costs $100 million, but it should last us at least as long as it takes to pay the Chinese back for it. Let the Senators know it’s not worth it by CLICKING HERE!

“58. For obvious reasons, when a court adopts in its entirety the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of one of the parties, there may be a problem with the appearance. The judiciary is not and should not be a rubber-stamp for anyone.” (State v. Griffin, 848 S.W.2d 464,472 (Mo.banc 1993))

In my previous posting, I also debunked the allegation that the model used by Let Voters Decide was not credible. Today, I am going to address one of the more preposterous notions in the order.

One of the most inane points of the judgment handed down is the thought that the legislature would not replace the revenue from the individual income tax or revamp the sales tax. While some might question the legislature’s observance of constitutional matters, I can tell you from personal experience that the legislature does not knowingly violate the constitution. Statute, yes; Constitution – no!

The initiative petitions contain a very specific mandate on the legislature:

Section 1(e).(1) The general assembly shall enact a law, effective January 1, 2014, imposing and levying a tax on all sales and services, except those sales and services exempted pursuant to Section 1(f) of this article,… (emphasis added)

It’s amazing to me that a judge who, to my knowledge, has never served in the Missouri legislature and an attorney who, to my knowledge, has also never served in the Missouri legislature (or held any elected position), would believe that the legislature would not follow the mandates of the Constitution. It’s simply preposterous to think that would be the case.

Nowhere is this lack of experience more clearly demonstrated than in the jointly issued opinion that indicates the belief that the various state agency inputs should be accepted on their face as their reason for declaring the MTRA model not credible. If the judge and opposing attorney had legislative experience, they would know that agency inputs on fiscal notes are routinely biased and seldom given much weight because of that bias.

If we were to apply the logic used in the joint opinion of the judge and plaintiff’s attorney, the legislature could save a lot of money by simply not doing a lot of constitutionally mandated things.

For example, the legislature could simply not pay on the public debt. It wouldn’t make the bond holders happy, and it would ruin the state’s credit rating but, hey, according to the indication in the opinion of the aforementioned people, the legislature cannot be forced to do anything contained in the constitution that requires the enactment of a law.

The payment of the public debt, while required to be the first priority of the state in the constitution, requires a law be passed. That law is the first budget bill, House Bill 1 in the first regular session of any General Assembly.  According to the logic of the opinion, the legislature could simply refuse to pass House Bill 1 and thus not pay the public debt.  Think of all the money in other areas that could be saved!

It’s preposterous to make a claim that the legislature would somehow fail to take the action directed by the constitution. It’s even more preposterous to assume that even if they did take the mandated action that they would not do so in such a way as to generate enough revenue to continue funding the needs of the state.

The legislature is a political creature having to stand for election and re-election. For people who have never served in the legislature to opine that this in and of itself would not be a sufficient and reasonable course of action is simply ludicrous. It shows the opinion was itself more political than driven by facts or reality.

The way this opinion and conduct has occurred should concern the citizens of Missouri. The opponents of improving Missouri’s economic future by reforming the tax code have consistently attacked the largest donor to the effort as a billionaire or millionaire or whatever the current derogatory term of the day may be. They falsely assert that he will somehow gain gazillions from the passage of the measure. But what should really scare the citizens of Missouri most is that if an issue supported by a person of means can be given short shrift by the legal system – what does that mean for those of us without those means?

The state auditor has indicated that he plans to appeal the decision.  Hopefully the folks at Let Voters Decide will also appeal.  The people of Missouri deserve better than what they have gotten so far from their judicial system.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The title of this blog post aptly reflects what the court did, as it merely reflected the opinion of the opposing counsel, typos and all. Unfortunately, the citizens of the state – who are paying for factual and legal balance in our courts – did not receive either in this case!

Case No. 11AC-CC00675 and Case No. 11AC-CC00676 both challenged the fiscal note summary of the MTRA petitions. They were consolidated and heard in the Cole County Circuit Court on March 22, 2012. I was there for the entire hearing. As a result, I was surprised that the judge decided to take the proposed order suggested by T. David Rogers’ attorney, since it did not represent the facts presented that day.

The court’s “ruling” ignored facts presented during the hearing and substantiated by documents that were entered into evidence. It also ignored the complete record submitted in some cases. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the opinion released was not so much that it didn’t change anything the attorney had submitted (including typos), but it contained a high level of personal attack not substantiated by the facts presented.

The inaccuracies and biases contained in the opinion are many in number We will be taking a look at just a few of these issues over several blog postings.

One of the areas about which the opposing counsel – er, I mean the court – was that the model used to develop the projections for the MTRA was not “credible.” This assertion was accepted, although facts were presented during the case that the MTRA model compared to the state’s “model” resulted in essentially the same outcome when making projections for the current baseline state revenues. If the model were not credible, this would not have been the case.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that the model used by the proponents of the MTRA is at least as credible as anything the state uses. I served on the Budget Committee the whole time I was in the House, including a stint as chairman. During my tenure as chairman, I was involved in battling the “model” the state used for projecting revenue.  In fact, the model was so unreliable that I refused to agree with the Consensus Revenue Estimate (CRE) used to develop the amount of revenue supposedly avaiable for budgeting.

This disagreement resulted in my hiring an outside economist to perform modeling of the state’s revenue history and apply that to future state revenue collections. This approach was very similar to that used to model the MTRA impacts. It, too, was subject to unwarranted cat-calls regarding its “credibility.”

This detailed analysis resulted in a 6% difference between what the “state” said we should expect to collect and what our model said we should expect.  At that time, I had been in the legislature about three years. People attacked my numbers as not being “credible” – after all, people who had been doing these types of projections for years disputed my approach and results.  Surely someone with supposedly little experience couldn’t possibly know more than these “experts.”

These same attacks are made upon Lucas Tomicki in the court’s opinion. In fact, the transcript will show the judge’s reaction when she found out Mr. Tomicki’s age. This was brought up again later when the plaintiff’s witness was sworn in. It seems that the misperception of “inexperience” due to age was, apparently, successfully created within the court.

So how did my brash inexperience flying in the face of the “experts” work out? Turns out that the “not so credible” model we used missed the actual revenue collections by .02%. This means the “experts” were 6.02% off, which was several hundreds of millions of dollars wrong! Even the Post-Dispatch had to acknowledge it!

I’ve looked at the MTRA model and believe it to be as credible as anything the state puts out. It’s too bad the judge didn’t take the time to study the evidence presented and come up with an opinion that reflected that evidence. One bright spot: Circuit Court judges get overturned frequently.

Pete is a former educator and school administrator.  His assigned topic was, as you might expect, education. He made several great points and comparisons about things such as the difference between teaching and educating. One of the key points Pete made was the difference between “fair” and “equitable”.

Pete pointed out that a system guaranteed to be “fair” is designed to guarantee everyone gets the same outcome.  And he aptly points out there is no guarantee of “fair” in the US Constitution.

Conversely, he pointed out that “equitable” is in the Constitution.  Everyone is guaranteed the same “equitable” opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  While everyone is guaranteed the same “equitable” opportunity, they are not guaranteed the same outcome. The outcome is predicated on many things that vary by individual.

We hear a lot from the President about a “fair” tax code for example but he never proposes one. He does propose a re-distribution scheme but not a “fair” tax code.

A “fair” tax code would insure that everyone paid something in to the federal coffers instead of  51% not paying any federal taxes.  His definition of “fairness” is not equitable opportunity but taking from some and giving it to others.  That’s not fairness Mr.President!

No, the President doesn’t understand the difference between “fair” and “equitable”.  - but Pete Frazier and many grass roots patriots do!

“What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.”

While there are many applications for this saying, it certainly applies to the National Popular Vote question.

The House Elections Committee will be conducting a hearing tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. in Hearing Room 5. One of the bills to be heard is House Bill 1719, implementing the National Popular Vote in Missouri. This bill has been around a long time, but in the past couple of years has picked up some momentum with the Speaker of the House as a co-sponsor and a former Speaker now serving in the Senate sponsoring Senate Bill 883.

A simple explanation of the National Popular Vote (NPV) is that Missouri would join in an agreement with other member states. Members would agree that all of their electoral votes will go to the winner of the popular vote total of all the agreement member states. The result would be that Candidate A could actually win a majority of Missouri’s votes cast, but because Candidate B won more of the popular vote in all member states combined, Missouri’s electoral votes would be cast for Candidate B.

One of the things you will hear is about how “popular” the National Popular Vote is. I refer you to the sign that occupied my desk!

This bill came up last year and it went nowhere. I wrote a blog about it at that time. After reviewing it, I don’t see that anything has changed. You can read National Popular Vote – Good for a Democracy, Bad for a Republic!

You can weigh in with the committee against this bad bill by clicking witness form provided by our friends at Missouri First!

Bottom line - if you support democracy, you will love the National Popular Vote. If you believe the founding fathers got the concept of a Republic correct, you will adamantly oppose the NPV!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The past week or two has been spent aggressively fighting the battle against the various attempts to implement features of Obamacare in our state. Grassroots activists from all around the state have been responding. The result is that the legislature has received almost 11,000 emails so far. And it’s not over yet!

Governor Nixon is attempting to take another bite out of the federal funding apple to lay the groundwork for the Obamacare Insurance Exchange. I know it will come as no surprise to you that the Governor’s camp is denying this is an action that will in any way establish the Obamacare Insurance Exchange. This, despite the fact that the name of the grant is “Health Insurance Exchange Establishment Grant.”

You may recall that a couple of weeks ago the Missouri House resoundingly defeated accepting federal funds for this purpose. Governor Nixon’s administration at first could not answer what the funds were really going to be used to accomplish. Their mantra was “upgrading the state’s Medicaid computer system.” Now, to be sure, the computer system does need to be upgraded. It does not need to be upgraded using federal funds that are intended to lay the groundwork for the Obamacare Insurance Exchange!

The House Budget Chair, Representative Ryan Silvey, had requested what is known as a “governor’s amendment” for the requested $50 million. (CLICK HERE to read more about how the $50 million is just the beginning and not the end of “upgrading Medicaid computer systems.”) The Governor refused to issue a “governor’s amendment” explaining the need for the grant. The head of the Office of Administration, Budget and Planning had provided the information about the “upgrading of the Medicaid computer system,” but the Governor could not or would not provide additional information.

Now the Fiscal Year 2013 budget is in the Senate Appropriations committee. Low and behold, a governor’s amendment has been sent to the committee. Traditionally, the Senate has been more friendly to governor’s amendments than the House. This is a case that calls for the Senate to NOT be friendly to this request.

Several Senators, some serving on the Senate Appropriations Committee, were instrumental in stopping the previous attempt by the administration to establish the Obamacare Insurance Exchange. You can read about these ongoing attempts here. The Senators were successful in stopping the “Cooperative Agreements to Support Establishment of State-Operated Health Insurance Exchanges” grant but it is back in the latest version of “upgrading the Medicaid computer system” — but on steroids!

The grant the Governor is requesting the Senate add to the budget includes all the tasks from the previoulsy mentioned grant such as these mentioned by the application:

“Because the ACA requires a..streamlined enrollment for Medicaid, CHIP….the development of the IT system will benefit Medicaid/CHIP-related programs and Exchange-related programs. Therefore, costs for this project need to be allocated between Medicaid/CHIP and the Exchange. Additionally, the Medicaid program will be building, to varying degrees, supporting infrastructures to facilitate the work of the Exchange.”

“We expect the State staff working on the exchange and the supporting Medicaid program activities to similarly work together as they develop joint solutions.” (emphasis added)

Interestingly enough, the link to this information has apparently been removed from state computer systems. ‘Must have been an upgrade!

EDITOR’S NOTE: After a call from the House Budget Chairman’s office the links are apparently working again.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has the opportunity to once again tell the federal government, ”NO,” regarding the establishment of the Obamacare Insurance Exchange. They are under pressure as they are being told that “upgrading the Medicaid computer system” will result in the reduction of employees needed by as many as 500 – no word as to whether the employees have been told the same thing. The alleged reduction in the number of state positions necessary to continue the current approach is very tempting to some Senators. However, the proposed $100 million total “upgrade of the Medicaid computer system” surely can be done for less AND without the strings of the Obamacare Insurance Exchange being attached.

If you haven’t already sent members of the Senate Appropriations Committee an email letting them know you do not support taking this federal grant, CLICK HERE to do it now. If you have – THANK YOU! Now, share the info with everyone on your email list and ask them to do the same!

Grassroots activists have shown they can have an impact. Now is not the time to relax – now is the time to continue the charge!

The hearing began with the bill sponsor, Senator Rob Schaaf, thanking the chair, Representative Chris Molendorp, for giving the bill a hearing.  Representative Molendorp said “thank you” to Senator Schaaf and “thanks to the thousands of people who have e-mailed me thanking me as well.”

After the Senator was through explaining the bill and answering questions, it was my turn to testify in favor of the bill. I described how Senate Bill 464 was good public policy requiring any healthcare insurance exchange to be established by an act of the legislature or vote of the people – not by the Governor or un-elected bureaucrats! When I referred to the fact that I believe the committee had heard from some of our members, the chairman said, “Yes, they are very efficient in their use of e-mails!” He further stated that he recognized the intensity of our members.

Two things to take away from today’s hearing:

First, the committee did not vote the bill out. It’s not unusual to hear a bill but not vote on it the same day. However, we want to encourage the committee to vote it out next week. We will be working with the House Handler, Representative Tim Jones, to encourage Representative Molendorp to vote the bill out next week. In the meantime, if you haven’t sent an e-mail to the committee, please do so by clicking here.  If you have already sent your e-mail, be sure to share this link with your various e-mail chains and friends! It’s not often that committee members get a lot of e-mails directed specifically toward them.

The second thing to take away from the committee hearing is that grassroots activists can and do have an impact on what is going on in the legislature. Do we always get want we want? No, but we have the responsibility to express ourselves and the responsibility to hold our elected decision-makers accountable.

Healthcare has always been a topic on which we receive the best response when we call you to action. It is also the one area in which we have had the most impact starting, with encouraging the Attorney General to join in the federal lawsuit against Obamacare  - he did – and leading up to this latest effort. But we are leaving a lot on the table.

We can have similar impacts on other issues. When you see a United for Missouri action alert come through your e-mail, take a brief moment to respond. As SB464 has demonstrated since we began the session with it – you can have an impact if you and others will act.

Don’t surrender your influence to those who desire bigger government. Take action when requested. Who knows: You may get another shout-out from another committee chair!

You and almost a thousand other grassroots activists have influenced the House to hear Senate Bill 464, which prohibits the governor and unelected bureaucrats from establishing the Obamacare Insurance Exchange without an act of the legislature or our vote. Senate Bill 464 will be heard in the House Health Insurance Committee at noon Tuesday, March 27, in Hearing Room 5. You made a difference!

This past Wednesday, we alerted you (The Day of Obamacare Insurance Exchange – Take Action Now!) to the fact that the Obamacare Insurance Exchange had been prominent in the Missouri Legislature this week. An amendment was offered in the Senate to establish the exchange without a full vetting of the issue. It was defeated!

We also provided you an opportunity to weigh in with your state representatives, to let them know you expected them to prohibit the Governor and unelected bureaucrats from bypassing them (or us). Almost a thousand of you have responded, and your impact was tremendously successful!

I heard from many state representatives about your input and its impact. The committee chairman also reported hearing from many of you and his colleagues regarding the hearing. He reports that he intends to conduct a review of the oral arguments for and against Obamacare from the Supreme Court at the hearing. I have asked him to vote SB464 out as-is, so it can go directly to the people in the November election.

Representative Tim Jones, a long-time advocate against this federal takeover of our health care system and its usurpation of states’ rights, has been asked to carry the bill in the House. Representative Jones is the House Floor Leader, and hopefully that will be helpful in making sure this bill moves along in a timely fashion.

Rather than this being a day of national mourning over the abusive Obamacare act, grassroots activists all across Missouri and the nation are fighting back! If you haven’t weighed in yet on Senate Bill 464, there is still time. Send your state representative the message that you support Senate Bill 464 by clicking here.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

As the United States Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare, activity is heating up on issues connected with it. Case in point – the Obamacare insurance exchange was on full display in the Senate and House yesterday.

Senator Joe Keaveny (D-4) offered an amendment on an insurance bill to implement the insurance exchange, but fortunately, it failed on a voice vote. The Southeast Missourian has the story (“Mo. Senate votes down health insurance exchange“). Regardless of what you think about an insurance exchange – to be sure, the Obamacare insurance exchange is not the way to go – it deserves more debate and discussion than being dropped as an amendment to a bill on the floor of the Senate.

The House also saw action on the Obamacare insurance exchange front. During deliberations on the budget, an amendment was offered to accept $50 million of federal funds for the purpose of updating the “Medicaid computer system.” Originally, the House Appropriations Committee added the funding to its bill. However, after further checking, it was discovered  that the funding was indeed intended to be the precursor for establishing the Obamacare insurance exchange. Fortunately, the House rejected the amendment to the budget bill on the floor last night.

The budget will be sent to the Senate, and you can be assured that another attempt to add the funding will be made!

So far, the legislature has moved slowly in establishing any insurance exchange. Work on an insurance exchange precedes Obamacare, but the so-called Affordable Care Act is neither affordable nor does it contain the requirement for a free-market approach to an insurance exchange. You would think all of this would be sufficient indication to the Governor and his unelected bureaucrats that they shouldn’t be doing anything to implement the Obamacare insurance exchange.

If you are one of those who think that – you are wrong!

Information I’ve been provided indicates that the Department of Social Services, Director’s Office and Missouri HealthNet Division have been busy working on putting everything in place for the establishment of the Obamacare insurance exchange. In fact, the information I’ve received is that there is a person in the director’s office spending most of his time working on this effort. There have been many committee meetings of state employees representing various state agencies. This effort has been going on for at least a year or two, despite the legislature’s clear indication that they are not inclined to do an exchange and certainly not the Obamacare exchange!  I don’t know about you, but I must have missed the public input part of this clandestine effort.

So what can we do about the Governor and unelected bureaucrats ignoring the will of the people (most of us remember Proposition C which passed 71.1%) and that of our elected officials? Senate Bill 464 is the answer. SB464 prohibits the Governor and his unelected bureaucrats from establishing an insurance exchange without an act of the legislature or a vote of the people!

SB464 has passed the Senate and has been referred to the House Health Insurance Committee. We have an action alert for you to encourage the House to take up and pass SB464, YOUR ACTION NEEDED: Encourage the Missouri House to Hear and Vote Out SB464!

We first sent this out last night and already have over 500 e-mails to state representatives. Please share this with your various e-mail lists and encourage others to let their state representative know that they want SB464 to be voted on and placed on the ballot!

It’s true the proposal would only affect sales tax rates in St. Louis City, St. Louis County and  St. Charles County. It’s also true that the proposal requires the tax increase to go to a vote of the people separately in each of those areas. However, everyone who has the occasion to pass through and pay sales taxes gets to pay for the proposal, if adopted – but that’s not even the real problem with the proposal.

The real problem is the idea that there has to be a tax increase at all. Why is it that government’s (or, in this case, a quasi-governmental body’s) first refuge is usually asking for more money rather than using existing revenues? Or better yet – why isn’t there the consideration of a user’s fee (you know, a “those who use the venue, pay for the venue” type of approach)? The fact of the matter is that this type of tax proposal can be offered as a “solution” anywhere, and its success in the St. Louis region can pretty much ensure that many other areas will look at the “proposal’ as a solution to their fiscal needs for some project.

If you don’t believe that this tax trick is a possibility in your area – you need only look at the sales job that is being used to take away your access to over-the-counter drugs that contain pseudoephedrine. It’s happening in rural, suburban, and urban areas!

There are a lot of questions to be asked about using local taxes to fund federal projects. Just a reminder, though – federal money is our money, just like the federal debt is our debt.

The feds get to make the decisions on the project, so why should the local taxpayers be asked to be double-taxed to support those decisions? The typical community leader response is “because of all the money the project will bring to the area.” That’s never a good answer for double taxation. It’s not usually a good answer even when it’s not double taxation!

Forget for a moment that double-taxing local taxpayers to pay for a federal project is very bad policy.  There is yet another way to do it besides more taxes or user fees.

The existing regional parks statute could be changed to simply allow any or all of the existing sales taxes collected to be used for the Arch grounds project. This authorization would include the local share as well as the share that goes to the Great Rivers Greenway District. It would be submitted to a vote in each of the counties and St. Louis City currently paying the tax to ask their permission to redirect some portion of the current tax – to be specified in the ballot language – to the Arch grounds project.

No tax increase for the people already suffering under hard economic times. I suspect that the folks at Great Rivers Greenway District may not be so enthused with the proposal to surrender existing dollars.

We will try to help them and others see there’s a better way than increasing taxes!

• Missouri Senate Bill 817
• Mike Parson on twitter.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Today, there will be a hearing on the Senate version of the bill – SB651.  If you haven’t yet, you can still weigh in on the matter.  CLICK HERE to send an email to your elected representative and senator telling them government is already big enough!

As is true of many other entities throughout Missouri, the Branson Board of Aldermen has the good intentions of protecting us all from the crimes of others by requiring a doctor’s prescription for pseudoephedrine products, which are currently over-the-counter (OTC) medicines.

The Branson aldermen have been sold on the “fact” that this approach will reduce the occurrence of meth production. It may do so temporarily but, as has been the case with other quick-fix approaches, it won’t last long.

Like so many other elected bodies with good intentions, the Branson Board of Aldermen believes increasing the cost of our medical care is a good thing – that, somehow, forcing citizens to pay to go to the doctor to get a prescription for OTC medicines is a good deal. Take it from experience – it’s not!

They haven’t learned the lessons from other places that have passed similar ordinances where consumers have a choice where to shop. Take St. Charles County, for example.

The St. Charles County Council passed an ordinance that requires a doctor’s prescription for OTC medicines containing pseudoephedrine basically in a pill form. Their contention is that other products (such as liquid capsules, etc.), which meth makers have not figured out how to use (YET!), are just as effective. They further assert that “your” doctor will simply phone in the prescription for you. Again, from personal experience – none of it works that way in real life!

The ordinance went into effect on August 30, 2010. Since we live in a world that government fully understands – continue reading after you stop laughing – the St. Charles County ordinance was effective and everyone complied with it, right? Wrong!

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in “Pseudoephedrine sales jump in cities near St. Charles County“ that, thanks to the actions of the St. Charles County government, pseudoephedrine sales actually increased – in other places! To quote the article:

A statewide database showed sales at pharmacies in Bridgeton jumped by 81 percent last month compared with August. The increases in Maryland Heights and Chesterfield were 59 percent and 51 percent, respectively.

The folks pushing this “good intention” bill claim those increases are due to the meth makers going to these places to buy product. Unfortunately for them, the people who are actually interfacing with buyers say it’s in fact law-abiding citizens making the purchases:

Grellner contends that meth-makers from St. Charles County are responsible for most of the buying surge across the county line.

But Robert Elfinger, a spokesman for the Walgreens chain, attributed the sales increase to law-abiding St. Charles County residents.

“Our pharmacy staffs at these locations believe what’s likely occurring is that patients with allergies and seasonal illnesses are traveling to their locations to purchase their medicine rather than making a doctor’s appointment to get a prescription,” Elfinger said.

I can tell you that my family was part of those increased sales figures! We don’t make special trips to get the medication, but as we are in the area we will pick them up often so we have them. We also don’t make meth and neither do the people I talk to who are doing the same!

Apparently, the Branson aldermen do not believe their retailers need the revenue generated from these products. If I’m a retailer in Ozark, Nixa, Springfield, etc. that does not yet have this ordinance in place, I’m all for Branson passing it – the sooner the better!

I don’t doubt the “good intentions” of the Branson Board of Aldermen. I do question whether they have actually studied the proposal and its impacts. As I point out in St. Charles County Council Improving Economy – Elsewhere, there have been a lot of “this will fix the problem” approaches to the scourge of meth production over the years. Each has had a temporary impact.  Most have not adversely affected the law-abiding citizen, as this proposal would.

The Branson Board of Aldermen is introducing this bill (Bill 4084) tomorrow night (Tuesday, February 28, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers – Branson City Hall – 110 W. Maddux).

Now is the time to let your alderman and mayor know: Thanks for the “good intentions,” but no thanks to bigger government measures! You can find their e-mail addresses and phone numbers at: http://www.cityofbranson.org/mayor-a-board.

One of the areas about which they continue to deceive is healthcare. We’ve addressed this issue several times (most recently in Tax Reform Opponents Seek to Deceive and Scare Seniors). Last week, they said that the proponents of the MTRA had not given a satisfactory answer. The fact is, we have – it’s just not one they like!

Let’s look at what the measure actually says in section 1(e):

(6) Sales of pharmaceuticals or medical services by a licensed health care professional for the direct benefit of any individual’s health care, where such sales or services are not subject to being recouped from another source;

The opponents’ deception regarding healthcare revolves around the words “…subject to being recouped….” They say that essentially means all healthcare will be taxed. If they really wanted to know what “recouped” means, they could find out by spending as little as $6.50 for a dictionary!

The opponents are spending a lot of money to oppose tax reform that would bring about the largest economic-activity boost the state has seen in our lifetime. They have engaged some high-priced consultants to aid them. So, just in case they can’t afford the $6.50, I’ve taken the time to give them the simple definition from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

re·coup /rɪˈku:p/ verbre·coups; re·couped; re·coup·ing

[+ obj] : to get back (money that has been spent, invested, lost, etc.) : recover
▪ It will be hard for us to recoup the loss. ▪ Movie studios can turn to video sales to recoup the costs of a movie that does poorly at the box office. ▪ She recouped only a portion of her investment. (emphasis added)

• Missouri Senate Bill 469
• Senator Bob Dixon’s Twitter
• Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 536
• Missouri Senate Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
• SIGN the UFM ACTION ALERT to STOP BIG GOVERNMENT IN MISSOURI
• New Senate District Committee

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Two bills, House Bill 1291 and Senate Bill 651, are prime examples of how small, even well-intentioned bills grow government.  CLICK HERE to take action.

HB1291 (Nance, R-36) and SB651 (Schaefer, R-19) do the same thing – they establish a new board for the purpose of licensing home inspectors. Sounds like a fairly noble cause, doesn’t it? The problem is that government has grown over the years with such boards that should be self-regulating and self-policing, not government regulated.

Government regulation and licensing does nothing but add cost. It also usually gives control or an advantage to a segment of the business sector being regulated – usually at the detriment of others in that sector. It’s also up for debate whether these boards and commissions actually perform a service for the public.

A good example of a non-government group is Underwriters Labatories (UL). We have all heard of this independent product safety certification organization. It’s not a government “board.” It was established in 1894 and preceded any government regulations.

The “UL” approach can and should be applied to such things as the home inspector certification process. Government boards should not control these matters; these boards grow government and grow the cost to the consumers.  You can do something about this latest attempt to grow government.

CLICK HERE to send an email to your legislator letting them know you oppose HB1261 and SB651. Let them know that if there is a problem with the home inspection industry, it should be solved by consumers and the industry – not by government!

There is opposition to these bills in the legislature.  Your action now by CLICKING HERE can have an impact in this attempt to expand government. Share this link with others and let them know they too can help!

As we outlined in Tax Reform Opponents Seek to Deceive and Scare Seniors, the deceptions seem to know no end.  The opponents attempt to scare seniors and anyone else in whom they can create fear.

It’s Easy to Create Fear But Not so Easy to Tell Truth for Some outlined the main differences between the estimates of the proponents and the opponents. Subsequently it’s been shown that the only real difference between the opponents and the proponents is in the expansion of the sales tax base.

The opponents claim the expansion is mythical and a shortfall will occur. Well at least some of the opponents do. Some opponents working for the same organization actually declare that everything or almost everything will be taxed.

Is it a sign of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing or is it a purposeful attempt to make sure the spectrum of possible confusion areas is covered? Based on what I have observed, it is more likely the latter.

This is an important point for the opponents.  The alleged shortfall is one of the fear tactics they employ. Another one is the attempt to create the false illusion that everything or almost everything will be taxed.  Obviously you can’t have a shortfall and still tax everything or almost everything! These two positions are opposite one another yet the opponents use them both.

The opponents have hired two “experts” to present their fiscal distortions, er, I mean their fiscal positions on the measure.

One of the people hired is a former joint committee staffer, Brian Schmidt, to write some white papers on the topic.  Brian is good guy. I’m not sure if they fed him the “inputs” or not but it’s clear as you read the white papers the inputs were not accurate when compared to the facts of the proposal.

The other person, Jim Moody, has been around Jefferson City a long time in various government positions and longer as a lobbyist.  The last time we had occasion to disagree, we were several hundred’s of millions of dollars apart.  I’m glad to say it came out my estimates were proven correct.  I’m satisfied the same due diligence has been applied toward the MTRA.

So surely with two “experts” they are in agreement on whether an expansion of the sales tax base takes place under the proposal, right? Actually, they are not!

In his submission to the State Auditor’s office on behalf of the Coalition for Missouri’s Future, Jim Moody had this to say about the proposal:

“The only expanded service that could be identified that would be taxed under the new initiative petitions would be cable and satellite telecommunications providers.” And “[…] there are no new revenues to be generated by expanding the services that are taxed under the two initiative petitions.” (emphasis added) http://www.auditor.mo.gov/notes/11-63.pdf

Moody claims that there will essentially be no expanded base and thus a shortfall.

Brian Schmidt doesn’t agree. In one of his white papers, he acknowledges the expanded base:

“Under the proposed sales tax, the number of taxable services would be expanded greatly, impacting purchases made by both households and businesses.” (emphasis added)

Schmidt went on to further identify 44 services that would be subject to tax that currently are not.  He has to in order to make some points in his white paper that ignore data on the issue and the real world experience of Tennessee as can be seen starting about 6:57 mark of this video.

So here we have two “experts” on tax issues disagreeing and they are on the same team!  The only reason to allow this disagreement within is because it makes sure you can use either end of the spectrum to cause confusion and fear!

The opponents will likely say it is a function of the confusion of the proposal itself.  Sounds good – at least until you actually read the proposal and see how plain and simple it is.

Both “experts” apply distortions to their analyses.  So – we are then left with the question “Which ‘expert’ are we to believe?”

Schmidt is right on the expansion of the base but wrong on impacts.

The opponents of the MTRA have recently deployed white papers that allegedly show the devastating impacts of the proposal. If the white papers were based on the facts – they would be devastating. Unfortunately for the opponents, when they feed their contractors garbage inputs, they get garbage output.

Take for example their white paper allegedly showing the drastic impact on seniors on a fixed income.  They once again use false assumptions such as healthcare being taxed under the MTRA. As we explain in Gone With the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association, healthcare won’t be taxed for anybody, much less seniors.

The best way to battle false and deceptive information is of course with the truth. The following information is a real-life example of a low-fixed-income senior. I know this lady well – I’ve been married to her daughter for quite awhile.

Let’s first take a look at the income and expenses of this senior.

As you can see, this senior makes very little and spends nearly all her income.  However, most of what she spends is not subject to the consumption tax in the MTRA.  Her rent, insurance, gasoline and healthcare including prescription medicines are not taxable. So how will this senior be affected?

Food will be taxed differently than it is today. The opponents always want to point to the increase in state sales tax rate on food and always ignore the fact that local tax rates will be reduced because they will also be collected on the same broader base as the state sales tax.  This results in the average increase of $.03 per $1 on food.

They also generally ignore that used goods, such as clothing or furniture from a consignment store, would also not be taxed. For this senior, that eliminates most of her miscellaneous purchases. But, in order to take a worst-case scenario under consideration, we will assume all her miscellaneous purchases are taxed. This is the impact of the MTRA on this senior:

This low-fixed-income senior will be paying $3.72 more per month when the MTRA is fully implemented. And that is worst case. If she continues to shop at consignment shops, etc., she can further reduce that amount.

As the saying goes, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” The opponents of the MTRA are pulling out all the stops to distort the facts regarding the proposal. Our responsibility is to supply those pesky details called “the truth.”

Tomorrow, we will talk about how they can’t even agree amongst themselves!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act (MTRA) provides a way to re-energize our economy by putting more money in people’s pockets. What happens when people have more money? They consume stuff! When you consume stuff, you create more demand . . . which creates more jobs . . . which creates more opportunities! Missouri can and should be the leader in creating opportunities for us, our kids, and our grandkids.

The opponents of the MTRA, meanwhile, continue to offer false attacks and distortions of the measure. They can (and actually do) know better, but they can’t win on the facts or on the truth. That leaves them with the only tool they know is effective: fear.

Fear is powerful – especially when you stir in a few half-truths and make it sound “good.”  The opponents of the MTRA are zen masters at this technique.

One example is that healthcare will be taxed. It won’t. As we explained in Gone With the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association, no healthcare is taxed unless someone pays you back for it.  Payments by insurance companies are not taxed. Deductibles are not taxed. Co-pays are not taxed.

The opponents’ quivers are full of poison arrows – arrows that are dipped in half-truth creating what they hope is poison for much needed tax reform. The opponents’ problem is that the antidote for their poison arrows is the truth. They are counting on the truth not being able to be delivered in sufficient quantities to be an effective antidote.

United for Missouri will continue to be one of the delivery vehicles for the antidote on the MTRA. We will continue to expose the opponents falsehoods and half-truths whenever and wherever we can. You can get an idea of some of the antidote to the deceptive arrows campaign here.

Missouri wasn’t the only state given this warning. It’s a ridiculous threat made to “protect” the “First in the nation….” It’s a disservice, and, in my honest opinion, the state parties should have stood up and told the national parties to take a hike, but they didn’t.

The legislature gets a lot of the blame for a $7 to $8 million fiasco that many consider little more than a political beauty contest. They managed to pass a bill eliminating the primary only to have it vetoed by the governor. They failed to override the veto, and they failed to pass another bill to eliminate the primary during special session last fall.

You have some candidates who are still in the race not even bothering to campaign here or not bothering to even get on the ballot. Then you have some candidates who laid down their $1,000 registration fee but are no longer in the race.

A great disparity of opinion exists about whether tomorrow means anything at all. My personal contention is that unless you have a local issue on the ballot, it really does mean very little.

If you do go to your appointed polling place, you are likely to encounter people who ask you to sign petitions to get initiative questions on the ballot. There are a number of them vying to get on the ballot, as noted on the SOS website.

Sometimes people make a big deal out of the number of initiatives submitted. Most of the time, this fuss is made because they disagree with the proposal. However, that is no reason to want to restrict the people’s ability to submit these petitions. As is usually the case, you cannot prohibit the “bad” people from doing something without restricting your own freedom. Those who want the initiative process to be more restrictive ignore the fact that when you shut one person or group out, you shut them all out.

In states that have taken restrictive actions on initiatives, the opposite outcome has resulted. Those groups that were supposedly the ones to be most affected flourished, while those not intended to be affected suffered. It’s one of those “be careful what you ask for” situations.

Some of those initiatives approved for circulation and signature collection are not actually being circulated. And some that are being circulated will fail to get the requisite signatures. At the risk of alienating some because I didn’t specifically mention the initiative they are most interested in or because I oppose one they are, I recommend two you should sign if given the opportunity and one you most definitely should not.

The Let Voters Decide coalition may be collecting signatures for the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act. If approved, it will eliminate double taxation of income and sales by eliminating the individual income tax and replacing it with a consumer-driven sales tax. It will create jobs and make Missouri the economic engine of the Midwest. We have written extensively about the measure, debunking false information from the big-government-spending opponents. You should definitely sign that one!

The next measure you may be asked to sign is the Safer Missouri Local Control petition. The state took control of the St Louis Police Department away from the taxpayers of St Louis during the Civil War. It was a purely political move. We are commemorating the 150 anniversary of the Civil War. One of the ways to commemorate is to give the taxpayers of St. Louis control of the police force they are paying for back to them!

The petition you SHOULD NOT sign is euphemistically known as the Your Voice Counts initiative.  The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) decieved voters in passing Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill initiative.  The legislature and governor, working with animal rights groups in Missouri as well as the agriculture community, fixed some very serious – even unconstitutional – issues with Proposition B during last year’s legislative session. All these groups signed off on the compromise – except for the out-of-state HSUS!

Now, HSUS is seeking revenge by proposing a measure that is so devoid of reason it’s pathetic. And as they did with Proposition B, they are trying to dress it up and make it look and smell pretty – it isn’t and it doesn’t!  Missourians should expect the legislature to honor their will but should also expect them to correct mistakes, which they did on Proposition B.

It’s easy to fixate on unemployment and be encouraged to see Missouri’s rate has fallen – but unemployment only considers those who are actively seeking a job in Missouri. Many people who want to be employed have stopped looking. Others may have moved away from the state to seek employment. Fewer jobs means fewer people in Missouri, and ultimately less economic activity and revenue.

On the heels of Governor Nixon’s State of the State Address last week, the Post-Dispatch and others blasted the Governor’s stubborn fixation on tax credits as a silver bullet for job creation. This year promises more budget cuts, mainly targeted at education, while Nixon vows to expand the use of tax credits as the main mechanism of job creation in Missouri.

Let’s give the Governor a gut-check: what kind of track record do tax credits have if our state shed 11,800 jobs last month?

Sen. Jason Crowell’s opinion in the Southeast Missourian gives us some numbers by which to judge Missouri’s tax credit success:

Over the last 13 years the state’s jobs plan has been to increase tax credits, which it has done by 430.8 percent, equaling $545 million in 2011 and projected to reach $639 million in 2012. Yet, the promised jobs have not come.

Clearly, the government picking who should get a tax break hasn’t worked, and it’s left average taxpayers holding the bill, scrambling to fund state services. It’s a solid bet that you would create more jobs than the Governor has been able to if that same money, instead of being funneled to special interests, was instead returned to the taxpayers who earned it.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Private interests hire lobbyists with their own money to tell their “story”.  It becomes a part of their cost of services or products.  They make a decision as to whether to pass those costs along to their customers.  Public entities hire lobbyists with taxpayer dollars and when they do, it is a direct cost to the taxpayers.

Lobbyists, particularly on the state level, often get a bad rap because they are an easy target.  It is true they have access and many of them or their clients make political contributions as well.  The public generalizes about lobbyists and some consider all lobbyists the same.  They aren’t.

My experience has been the majority of lobbyists provide accurate information regarding the issues or at least accurate in regards to the client being represented.  It’s up to the legislator to ask the right questions to uncover the other side of the story. It’s really as simple as asking “what will those opposed to your position tell me?”

Lobbyist are regulated and for legitimate reasons. Over the years, several bills have been proposed to limit the use of taxpayer dollars to employ lobbyists to convince legislators to vote “yes” or “no” on bills. The lobbying efforts from public entities are usually represented as being on behalf of the taxpayers of the public entity.  The real truth is that the vast majority of the efforts are in favor of the public entity and not the taxpayers that public entity represents.

Each time a bill has been introduced to eliminate public funding lobbying but still allow public entities to hire lobbyists to provide info only, the lobbyists and public entities have been successful in thwarting the bill.  The bill has never made it out of committee to my knowledge.  So far the lobbyists and public entities wishing to continue using the taxpayers as their source of funding to influence the legislature have won the battle at the expense of their funding source, the taxpayer.

It’s obvious that legislators do not want to take on the lobbyists in this matter. We have a lot of work to do before we can get to this position but it can be done.

This year House Bill 1494 has been introduced that would as described early, merely require a public entity to disclose any lobbyists they hire to represent them using taxpayer dollars and how may dollars they spend.  It also requires the public entity to disclose memberships in organizations paid for by taxpayer funds.

Now surely this is considered an innocuous requirement of public entities to disclose right? Wrong!  Lobbyists have already circled the wagons and apparently caused enough uproar that the very basic bill is expected to have significant problems.

This should not be an acceptable position.

We the people who are providing the funding for these lobbyists should require more accountability from those public entities who spend our hard earned money to hire them. Asking them to disclose who they hire and how much of our money they are using to do it should not even be an issue they fight against!

Over the next few weeks we will likely ask you to contact your legislator regarding HB1494 and where they stand.  It’s a very simple disclosure bill.  What are the legislators, public entities and lobbyists afraid of in the bill?  Surely it isn’t the shining of the light on how they spend our money, is it?

You don’t have to wait to contact your state representative – call or write them now!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

He and his cronies have changed the rules to make it look like the rich are getting richer. They have changed how income is reported or counted making it look much worse than it really is simple by changing how it is reported. It is important you believe the President’s deception. If you don’t, he can’t convince you to do even more damage to our economy than he already has done.

But even beyond that, you can’t implement the President’s tax plan because it just does not work! Of course, nothing else he has done has worked either!

Here is why the President’s piddly plan won’t work:

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The first issue was Senate Bill 464 which prohibits the Governor and unelected bureaucrats from establishing the Obamacare health insurance exchange unless the legislature or vote of the people have authorized it.  We covered the issue in Episode 42 of the Missouri Minute where we interviewed the sponsor Senator Rob Schaaf.

Then we issued our first Action Alert of the legislative session and nearly 1,000 members responded in the first 48 hours!  The Small Business, Insurance and Industry committee voted the bill out on a 6-1 vote last Tuesday.  Your participation helped make this a reality!

The committee also heard on the same day Senate Bill 560 sponsored by Senator Luann Ridgeway.  SB560 has the same prohibition but adds two additional elements. The first is to establish legal standing so that any taxpayer can bring a lawsuit if the provision is violated.  The second element requires that defense of any lawsuit for violation of the prohibition has to come from the budget of the department who is accused of the violation.  This is important as defense of such lawsuits are normally taken from the state legal defense fund.

You can still e-mail your senator about your support for SB464 and SB560 by clicking here. The full senate will take up the bill(s) and need to hear from you!

The second major piece of taxpayer friendly legislation passed the House and was sent on to the Senate.  House Joint Resolution 43, the Taxpayer Protection Act’s most important element limits the amount of growth in state spending based on population growth and Consumer Price Index (CPI). The House amended this limitation to include a growth of 1.5% of the previous year’s general revenue collection.  This should be eliminated by the Senate in their version of the measure.

As you might expect, those who believe there should be no limits on how much of our tax dollars should be spent were against the bill.  They believe the only limitation is how much they can squeeze out of us.  False claims about the measure putting the budget on cruise control and removing legislators from the  decision process is simply false.

HJR43 will not only keep the members of the legislature in control of how our money is spent but it will provide a sharper focus on what it is spent on.  The spending limitation will require legislators pay more attention to where the money is going rather than just a baseline add to the budget process they go through now.

Our second Action Alert of the legislative session was in support of HJR43.  We had a number of members respond quickly to the last minute notice and again were effective.

Below is the vote on HJR43.  You can readily identify those legislators, 105 of them, who side with the taxpayer and a more accountable spending process.  You can also readily identify those legislators, 54 of them, who believe they should be able to spend our money and as much as of it as they think they need to.  You decide!

AYES: 105

NOES: 054

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 004

Grass roots are having an impact on legislation. Sometimes it’s not always the one we want to have or the level we want but you are being heard!  We will have additional Action Alerts during the session.  Please consider weighing in with your elected representative to let them know where their constituents stand.

This week on the Missouri Minute: Carl Bearden and Woody Cozad record live – with special guest Senator Rob Schaaf. Today: Transparency, Healthcare and a new legislative session.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The Senate Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee conducted a hearing on Senate Bill 464 prohibiting the establishment of an insurance exchange by the governor and/or unelected bureaucrats! If you are unaware of the shenanigans that have been attempted to bypass the legislature on this issue, you will want to read Missouri Health Insurance Exchange Back in the News! to see what is going on.

An Action Alert will go out today to give you an opportunity to let the committee members know of your support for voting Senate Bill 464 out of committee and letting the full Senate vote on the issue.

The House has also been addressing important issues. We all know that the federal government has a spending problem.  We don’t always think of state and local governments as having a spending problem – but they do. Rep. Eric Burlison has proposed the Taxpayer Protection Act (House Joint Resolution 43) as a tax expenditure limitation measure.  The House Budget Committee heard the bill today and voted to send it on to the full House.

The measure limits the growth in state spending to the growth in population plus inflation. It also establishes a true rainy day fund, and when state collections outstrip the state spending limit and all emergency funds are full, the state income tax rate will be reduced by the nearest .25%!  The full House will likely take HJR43 up next week. Via an Action Alert, you will receive the opportunity to let your state representative know that you support this reasonable limit on growth in state spending.

The House Rules committee heard House Bill 1140, which would expand the level of local government reporting on the state’s accountability portal. The Office of Administration would be required to maintain public school and county government information, including detailed employee compensation data and operating budgets as well as bonded indebtedness levels.

I don’t think anyone would be surprised that there are some who are opposed to doing this. Our experience providing this service for free to local governments shows that many are not all that anxious to share taxpayer data with the taxpayers themselves. We will be supporting this effort as it moves through the legislature.

We have had two local government entities step up to the plate to provide this information to their taxpayers via our Transparency Portal project. The Mehlville Fire Protection District has the most comprehensive data available. The Liberty Public School District provides expenditure data but no salary data – but it’s a start!

To be sure, there has been some bad stuff proposed, as there is every year. But so far, with six legislative days completed, we’re off to a good start.

We’ve written about the various attempts Governor Nixon and/or the unelected bureaucrats working for him have made to prepare the way for the Obamacare insurance exchange.  Obamacare Insurance Exchange Comes Through Back Door in Missouri revealed that unelected bureaucrats and a commission attempted to establish the insurance exchange – even though it had been rejected by the legislature.

Backdoor Health Insurance Exchange Update told the story of how we were on the verge of having the insurance exchange crammed down our throats. Had it not been for the immediate action of some state senators, the federal grant would have been accepted and the groundwork for the insurance exchange would have been laid.

Senator Rob Schaaf (R-34) has introduced Senate Bill 464. The bill would prohibit the establishment, creation, or operation of a state-based health insurance exchange unless the exchange is created by a legislative act, an initiative petition, or referendum.  The bill doesn’t prohibit the establishment of a healthcare insurance exchange, but it does prohibit the governor or any unelected bureaucrat from doing it!

Senator Scott Rupp, chair of the Small Business, Insurance, and Industry committee, conducted a hearing on the bill yesterday. Senator Rupp has asked to be a co-sponsor on the bill and will likely ask the committee to vote the bill out next week. KMOX (1120 AM) has a report on the hearing conducted on the bill yesterday (“Another Roadblock to Obamacare in Missouri“).

The bill has a referendum clause since it is statute and would go to a vote of the people.  The governor cannot veto the bill with this provision in it.

The hearing was indicative of what you can expect in regards to the opposition. The opposition will not likely be very public. It will be underground. At some point, the senators who support the opposition will have to speak out and make some sort of argument against the bill or filibuster it in some way.  The problem is they will have to, at some point, expose their support of an insurance exchange.

You will have an opportunity to encourage senators to support SB464. Our first Action Alert of the year will be on SB464 and will give you the opportunity to let members of the Senate Committee know that you support the bill. Look for it soon!

Skype had some audio issues early on in the podcast (pops), it gets much better a few minutes in. 

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Happy New Year!

(note: links in graphic are not operational.)

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

I mentioned in in the previous blog post that it appears the opponents are even confusing themselves. As evidence of this possibility, I offer the opponents introduction of alleged contradictions.

A couple of new slides were part of the presentation at the debate in Ozark. Both slides were intended to show some conflict in either language or various presentations done by different people supporting the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act.  They did neither.

The first slide in question attempted to create the impression – the false impression – that one proponent said that all business to business transactions would be taxed while another said they would not.  If you take each statement in context, you will find they are not contradictory but are saying the same thing.

The Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act provides that there will be no business to business tax where the item being purchased will be used in a product or service for retail. Intermediate business to business activity, such as copy paper for the office copier, will have a sales tax paid on it. That’s what both said and that’s what both meant.  This can be found in the petitions in Section 1(f)(12).

Interestingly enough, Section 1(f)(12) is part of the confusion factor that Jim Moody attempts to use to continue to deny that there will be no tax on healthcare.  He used a tweet of mine from our last debate in Springfield, where I used the example of a for-profit entity buying an MRI as an example of “recoupement” and explained in Gone with the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association. They would pay sales tax on that purchase but could not charge a sales tax on the healthcare service.

Moody attempts to say that 1(f)(12) overrides 1(f)(6). It simply does not. If the words “not subject to being recouped from another source” were not present in 1(f)(6), then the for-profit purchase would not be taxed. However, neither 1(f)(6) nor 1(f)(12) are dependent on each other and each stands alone. No ambiquity. No question. Any judge, even one who participated in the recent debacle known as legislative redistricting, would have no problem understanding that principle.

The issue of marginal and effective rates was also hit upon in the debate.  The statement was made that “nobody pays 6 percent.” That’s partially correct but not entirely accurate. We will cover that in another blog posting.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing revelations as to how far the opponents are willing to go to distort and confuse came from a prepared statement made by a long-term member of one of the area’s local school boards. She indicated that the measure should be opposed because of who may or may not support it. Forget about encouraging people to study the issue and get all the facts, which you would expect a school board member to do. No, the message was solely that we must oppose this because of who supports it. It’s a sad commentary on the state of education when we have school board members who not only discourage critical thinking, but who also don’t practice such thoughtfulness.

After hearing these types of “rebuttals” frequently, I’m beginning to wonder if the opponents haven’t confused themselves.  We might have to admit that they are so good at their objective of confusing and distorting that it works on them as well!

Joe Friday never uttered those words. He actually said most often, “All we want are the facts, ma’am.” It’s easy to make up the thought that Friday actually said, “Just the facts, ma’am,” because it sounds like something he might have said. Reminds me a lot of the deceptive technique opponents of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Plan employ to mislead people!

You see, they say things that “sound right” but really aren’t. The “factoids” sound convincing and like they could be true – thus creating what the opponents want, which is confusion and doubt. Confusion and doubt are the best friends of those who want someone to vote “NO” on anything.  It doesn’t matter whether the information is entirely accurate or even applicable, as long as it serves its purpose.

A good example of the latter statement occurred at a debate between myself and Jim Moody, who represents the Coalition for Missouri’s Future (which would more appropriately be called the Coalition for Missouri Falling Further Behind). The coalition is upfront about its opposition to the tax reform and jobs plan represented by the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act but offers no alternative other than the status quo. The status quo is failing Missouri on many levels. If you are going to be against a policy proposal, that’s OK. But when you offer nothing but the status quo, it’s not OK.

The debate was before a full house at the Ozark Chamber of Commerce. Jim provided his usual slide presentation with a couple of extras added.  The extras made me wonder if the opponents aren’t confused themselves. (More on that in a second blog posting.)

Jim usually talks about a lot of things that have no bearing on the measure or the use of comparisons to Tennessee.  For example, he always refers to the Tennessee Excise Tax (corporate tax) and the Privilege Tax (which professionals like lawyers and doctors pay). He presents them as though they are a necessary component to the Tennessee sales tax model – they aren’t.  They are in fact additional sources of revenue to Tennessee, but they have nothing to do with the sales tax model we are discussing.

He also discusses a couple of things that are at least sales tax issues and differences between the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act and the current Tennessee model: most notable, the “single article” tax and the 8.25% sales tax on satellite TV. The problem with using these as a “measure” of why the tax reform proposal won’t work is that the facts just don’t add up.

The “single article” tax brings in $38 million out of $6.4 billion. I can tell you that in the state budget, you’re almost talking about a rounding error.  It’s not a factor in the tax reform propsal and it’s not necessary to generate adequate revenue, as I demonstrated here.

The satellite tax example is even sillier.  Jim’s message is that Tennessee taxes satellite services at 8.25%. It brings in a whopping $40 million out of $6.4 billion. Unlike the “single article” tax, the tax reform proposal will tax satellite services at 7% rather than 8.25%. In other words, we will tax satellite services at 85% of the rate Tennessee does today. Not much of a shortcoming!

I”ve often said that there is nothing wrong with disagreements. People and groups often have different opinions, and there is nothing wrong with that.  However, even Sgt. Joe Friday and Officer Gannon would tell you that you are entitled to your own opinion but not to entitled to your own facts.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Burnham’s Law – Missouri Association of REALTORS® listed a number of falsehoods that MAR is telling its members.  It seems they were none too happy when the primary proponents of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act – Let Voters Decide – provided information to REALTORS® all across the state about what was really going on.

MAR responded with misleading information and held back the real reason for originally objecting to the proposal – it didn’t specifically exempt real estate commissions. Of course, the REALTORS® neglected to point out that they left that out of their Amendment 3 campaign in 2010. Why? Well, probably because they knew that if they had put that in as a part of the amendment, people might realize that the measure was not as altruistic as they thought.

Prior to this inaccurate information being disseminated by MAR – and since the proposal was always about eliminating the income tax, and real estate commissions are income – there was no real conflict. I was invited to participate in discussions with Missourians for Fair Taxation (aka the Missouri Association of REALTORS®) regarding the matter. We met with the president of MAR, their lobbyist, their attorney and their political consultant on April 15, 2011, to see if there was a way to resolve what appeared to be a conflict based on an easy-to-clarify misunderstanding.

The meeting was cordial, and it was agreed that the attorney for Let Voters Decide and the attorney for MAR would work out some language that would address MAR’s stated concerns. The summary of this effort can be found here.

Once you read the summary, you can understand why the folks at Let Voters Decide and I were surprised at the opposition that MAR still had to the measures. However, once you read the “supporting” details sent to MAR membership, you will understand that it really wasn’t about the issues, but about politics and keeping potential “partners” in the fold in case there ever was a potential, tiny chance that the legislature would try to undo both Amendment 3 and the real estate provisions of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act.

There is a significant problem with that faulty logic – namely, the legislature can’t undo a Constitutional provision!  They have to put it before the voters to change the Constitution. I don’t know about you, but I can’t foresee any time in which voters as a whole would approve anything that would so drastically increase the cost of their homes, whether buying, selling or transferring them.

If the story stopped there, it would be bad enough. However, the president of Let Voters Decide attempted to contact the two families who really call the shots at MAR to let them know what had transpired. Surely, they didn’t have the complete information available to them about the issue?

A letter was sent to the Mendenhall and Keating families outlining what efforts had been made.  To my knowledge, the letter remains unanswered.  One source close to the MAR has suggested the reason is that one of these folks is vying to become president of the National Association of Realtors and that this “fight” would help in that cause.  If I operated like Missourians for Fair Taxation, I would present that as a “fact.” However, I don’t have confirmation of that and, unlike Missourians for Fair Taxation, I will tell you that I do not know whether it is factual or not – rather than just tell you it is.

Regardless of  the validity of anyone’s political aspirations within the national organization, the fact remains that MAR is willing to sacrifice the demonstrated potential for state economic growth represented by the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act. It’s particularly peculiar, given that the tax reform proposal would in turn create the potential for more sales as people move up to bigger houses, or move into the state and need a home.  They are willing to sacrifice your economic opportunity to protect their political position.

You may have heard that Missouri is a low income tax state and that the tax system isn’t a deterrent to economic growth. You can only come to that conclusion if you are complacent in your research, ignoring the facts of real business decisions.

The real measure of a state’s tax friendliness is a company’s willingness to consider relocating to your state. Applying the adage that something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it (Albert Pujols being the latest example), tax climate is in fact a major consideration.

Will a ranking from a non-partisan organization help a state make the short list for consideration? Maybe. Does tax climate play a part? Yes. We don’t have to guess about this. We can look at some extensive research that has been done, in which researchers actually talked to people who make the decisions about relocation.

Development Counsellors International (DCI) first conducted the most comprehensive survey of corporate executives with site selection responsibilities in 1996. The most recent survey, Winning Strategies 2011 report, provides a number of interesting outcomes demonstrating the difference between facts and “factoids” – and the regurgitation of those factoids is no substitute for real research or investigative journalism.

Texas has held the number-one spot since 1999. And for those who say it’s because of the state’s oil – try again and see if you can find out how much of Texas’ revenues oil really represents. The decision makers had this to say about why Texas has held the number-one spot for so long:

Those who believe that Missouri’s tax climate is friendly enough to attract a lot of new businesses do not have the facts. Or, they are capable of rejecting the facts in order to support their false notions – or to protect their special interest exemptions, such as advertising.

These folks remind me of George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life. He had an angel in front of him. He could see him with his own eyes. He could hear him with his own ears. But he couldn’t accept it in his head.

The facts are available to support the tax reform proposal. The opponents, like George Bailey, won’t accept them – even though they are right there in front of them.  But unlike Bailey, the majority of opponents have a special interest in confusing and confounding people with factoids.

If it weren’t so ridiculous and underhanded, it might be funny.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

KSGF Podcast

The graphic is a little dated when it comes to the state budget, which is approximately  $23 billion today. However, it certainly represents the fact the opponents of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act love spending other people’s money. In fact, they enjoy that activity so much that they will go to nearly any length to make certain nothing upsets their apple cart. Among their favorite methods? Distorting the facts regarding the proposed tax reform!

Perhaps the proponents of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act should be pleased. After all, if the supporters of big-government spending programs and taking dollars directly out of our paychecks didn’t think that this proposal was a threat to life as they know it (i.e., soliciting and receiving bigger government dole-outs for their special interest causes), they wouldn’t be working so hard to create clever distortions of the truth.

Last week I pointed out just one of the deceptive approaches they are using to confuse people. In Tax Reform Opponents Use Deceptive Tactics to Scare and Confuse, I point out that they attempt to confuse people about how many versions of the petition are ready for signature collection. Even though on one day their spokesperson tweeted about an article that clearly says there are only two versions available, the very next day he posed the disingenuous question: Which of the 13 versions will be chosen? Either the opposition truly can’t get its act together, or it is purposely misleading the public.

Then, in Gone With the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association, I point out the fact that the opponents are willing to tell outright lies about the measure. The opponents claim health care and prescription drugs will be taxed – they won’t. But, of course, the opposition refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good political campaign based on falsehoods and distortions!

It’s Easy to Create Fear But Not so Easy to Tell Truth for Some strongly refutes the opponents’ false “to be replaced” revenue number and highlights the fact they ignore the expanded base created by the tax reform proposal.  Still, they labor on, hoping citizens of Missouri don’t do the research for themselves.

Finally, Burnham’s Law – Missouri Association of REALTORS® exposes a number of myths promulgated by the Missouri Associations of Realtors, who are the prime backers of Missourians for Fair Taxation. This is another group that hopes you will only read their name and not truly understand their false attacks on the measure.

One of the latest falsehoods the opponents are telling is that food will be taxed at 10% under the plan. This one is unusual, as the opponents ordinarily will at least take some tiny bit of truth and stretch it out of proportion.  In this case, just as with the healthcare issue, they lie.

Section 1(3) (1) of both petitions specifically limit the state sales tax on food to 5.5%. The opponents will say, “But wait, there is also a sales tax on the local level, sometimes approaching 5%, which would make the sales tax on food 10%!” I want to thank the opponents for giving us the opportunity to refute yet another falsehood!

The fact is that section 1(i) of both petitions requires that all local government rates be recalculated for the expanded base.  It protects these entities from losing money but it also prevents them from gaining a windfall. The opponents ignore this part of the provision because they don’t like it.

So what does that mean for the sales tax on food? Projections for the recalculation of local taxes indicate that the statewide increase on food will be around 3 1/2 cents on every dollar. I hate to burst the opponents’ bubble, but nowhere in the state will the sales tax on food be 10%.

We will continue to expose the falsehoods and distortions of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act.  Unlike the opponents, I feel obliged to tell the truth about the measure!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

I wrote about the distortions of one of the major opposition “members,” the Missourians for Fair Taxation, in Burnham’s Law – Missouri Association of REALTORS®.  Another “member” has also been spreading falsehoods in ads running across the state (I blogged about that in Gone with the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association). These blog posts outline the half-truths and outright falsehoods regarding the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act in an obvious effort to scare people. There is nothing wrong with being opposed to an issue. But there is everything wrong when you have to lie as part of your strategy!

The spokesman for Missourians for Fair Taxation regularly posts misleading information. Let me make this clear: I know and like the spokesman, Scott Charton. I’ve worked with him on other projects. He is good at what he does. What’s not clear is if he actually believes the misleading information he is spreading, or whether his employers are insisting he do so and he wants to just keep his job. The most recent example of misleading information occurred within the last few days.

Yesterday, Scott posted this on Twitter:

@ScottCharton When will backers of the “Almost Everything Tax” shoot straight with MO voters about which of the Unlucky 13 versions they’ll settle on?

On the surface, it may seem to be a fair question.  The Let Voters Decide campaign has submitted and had approved thirteen versions of tax reform. Unfortunately for Scott and his employers, they are not able to keep their information straight.

Missourians for Fair Taxation know that, at the time of Scott’s tweet yesterday, there were only two petitions eligible for circulation. Here’s Scott’s tweet from November 29, 2011, acknowledging that fact:

@ScottCharton More monkeyshines from backers of MO’s risky “Almost Everything Tax”; learn more at DeclineToSign.org tinyurl.com/cxd4nsx

Scott should have been aware beforehand – or at least after reading the article he tweeted about – that there are only two versions of the petition eligible for circulation. Are Missourians for Fair Taxation that out of touch with the facts, or are they that bent on deception?

Scott and his employers appear to need a little assistance.  On one hand, they don’t seem to be able to find the text of the two petitions. I guess that information is difficult to find when you are so busy trying to develop deceptive information to distort the facts.  For the opposition’s convenience, here are the links, which all Missouri voters have been able to view for weeks:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012petitions/2012-075.asp

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012petitions/2012-076.asp

Scott and his employers know – or should know, if they understand how the ballot-initiative process works – that when you actually circulate a petition, you have to have the exact language attached as that approved by the Secretary of State including the language for the Constitutional amendment. Now, we know that Missourians for Fair Taxation are aware that petitions are being circulated.  That’s why they have established their deceptive “Decline to Sign” site.  Every person asked to sign the petition has the language in front of them. Do Missourians for Fair Taxation truly not know this? Or do they – and are they once more attempting to deceive and create confusion?

So far, the press hasn’t done any in-depth analysis of the false claims; instead, they’ve merely regurgitated the false information. The people of Missouri deserve better from journalists.

As we expose the falsehoods being utilized by the opponents, it’s clear that they are either grossly misinformed and ignorant of the facts, or they are purposely distorting them. Either way, their credibility is very suspect.

They got the fact that businesses that choose to allow smoking do so as a business decision.  If those who own the business, who have everything to gain and everything to lose decide that it’s a good decision they should have the right to allow smoking on their premises. If enough patrons let them know they are against smoking in the establishment by not patronizing the business, then the owner can make the decision to go smoke free.  The principle here is that the business owner’s personal freedom is in operation to make that decision not government or the tyranny of the majority.

Those voting against the ban also understand that NO ONE is forced to enter or work in a smoking establishment.  As patrons of businesses we can decide whether we want to do business there or not.  If we are concerned about the health issues associated with second hand smoke, we can simply choose to go somewhere else.  Big government has no role in making our life easier in making this choice by eliminating the choice of others.

Workers have the ability to find other service jobs at smoke free establishments as well.  In fact, one of the pro-smoking ban witnesses stated that she worked in a smoking environment, became a smoker and then quit.  She didn’t want to work in a smoking environment any longer so she found a new job.  That’s the way it is supposed to work!

Plato, Aristotle, Madison, de Tocqueville and JS Mill all warned of the tyranny of the majority.  Sadly because of the shortcomings of our educational system today, many do not understand what “tyranny of the majority” even is much less understand how dangerous it is to our liberties! JS Mill in his book On Liberty lays it out as

decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority’s interests so far above a dissenting individual’s interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots.

Too often I have opined on the actions of the St Charles County Council in a negative manner.  Unfortunately, they deserved it for such things as making pseudoephedrine require a prescription which most people rejected and are now taking their business to St Louis County. So now I’m glad to acknowledge the good efforts of the county council!

I do not believe that those council members who supported the smoking ban are tyrants or despots.  I do believe they totally misunderstand their roles in a republican form of government.

They certainly misunderstand the role of government to avoid and protect against the tyranny of the majority.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Gone with the Wind was based on events immediately prior to, during and immediately following the Civil War. The book and the movie were certainly based on a real event in our history. Some scenes may even portray some of the “conditions” that may have existed as told through the eyes of Margaret Mitchell. To that end, Gone With the Wind appears more factual than the deceptive MBA ads running around the state.

The MBA is running fictional radio ads all across the state against the proposed MTRA. Like all good works of fiction, there is at least a modicum of truth – in this case very little. I’ve been tempted to send an e-mail to MythBusters to put the MBA myths on national TV as being busted but haven’t, yet.

I’m not sure if the ad guys have ever read the proposal for tax reform contained in the MTRA. If they have, they should go to Hollywood and get a job writing for a new science fiction show. Their ability to distort reality is very good and I’m sure they could make a good living at it.

What’s fictional in the ads? I thought you would never ask! The ads claim that from cradle to grave you will be taxed.

• They claim you will be taxed for having a baby and other healthcare treatments. You won’t!
• They claim you will be taxed for buying prescription medicines. You won’t!

Had the ad writers read the measure they would have found in Article X, section 1(f)(6) that not only are healthcare services not subject to the sales tax – including birthing babies – neither are prescription drugs! Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and presume they don’t have access to a dictionary so they can look up the big word “recoupment”.

Recoupment is the recovery of something already expended. It doesn’t mean it was an amount that was not owed or paid. It’s doesn’t mean that a refund of overpayment may be due. Perhaps the ad writers got confused between refunds and recoupment. A refund is not a recoupment. A good dictionary would clear up that problem.

I don’t know about you but I’ve never experienced recoupment of my co-pays. Once I’ve paid them i don’t recover or recoup them.

I’ve never experienced recoupement on my deductibles. My agreement with my insurance carrier says i will pay a certain level of deductible before they pick up their portion. I don’t recover my deductible from the insurance company once I’ve paid it.

The ads claim you will be taxed to die and be buried. Here they have their modicum of truth. It is true that things like caskets and urns would have a sales tax, not much different than today. However, the MBA would falsely have you believe that everything in the burial process would be taxed.

But once again reading the measure does wonders for eliminating fiction. Articke X, section 1(f)(3) and 1(g)(2) clearly state that embalmer and funeral director services won’t be subject to taxes. So not much changes from today

Listening to the ads you would never know that the real reason the MBA is running them is they will be one of the 150 or so special interest exemptions that would be eliminated. Yes advertising will now be subject to sales tax. Wonder why that wasn’t part of the ad?

Frankly Scarlett, the MBA ads just don’t match up with the facts. They are a lot like Scarlett – deceitful and misleading.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Hoping to learn something, I read their missives, er, I mean their press release and interviews only to find it to be deja vu all over again! Sadly, it was nothing more than the same deceptive narrative we have seen in the past.

The members of this new coalition are by and large the same, big government crowd who know how to work the existing system and don’t want anybody messing with their rice bowl. I’ve done battle with many of them before and no matter how many times you expose them, they keep coming back. They are using the same tactics of distorting and outright tell lies about the measure as a previously announced group.  It’s probably because they are using some of the same political “consultants” as the other totally misnamed group.

The new group and others tell so many falsehoods that it’s hard to choose which ones to address first.  It’s probably best to start with the foundation of whether the proposal will provide adequate revenue to provide state services. On one hand the new group calls the proposal the “tax everything” tax and then says it won’t generate enough revenue.  If it indeed taxes everything then one would have to accept the fact that it would generate more than enough revenue.

The group claims that the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act would have to replace at least $7.9 billion.  That’s patently false.  It’s so false that any other claim made by the group should automatically be dismissed as unreliable.  After all, if you can’t even get the most basic element right, how can you be trusted to get anything right?  Here’s the facts.

The base of the discussion is the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 General Revenue collections from the state Office of Administration.  The opponents use state FY2011 numbers but the Bureau of Economic Analysis data is not yet available for FY2011 so using FY2010 at this time is the most accurate with documentation sources available.

Here is what the opponents say needs to be replaced (FY2011 numbers):

The problem is, the only part that needs to be replaced is the individual income tax portion.

• The current sales taxes are not being replaced, they will still be collected over a broader base
• The Senior Circuit Breaker is paid out from the individual income tax collections and are part of it’s replacement
• Prop C (Education sales tax) is not being replaced but will still be collected over a broader base
• Majority of tax credits are corporate and will be unaffected by measure. Individual tax credits can be redeemed through 2016. No replacement necessary.

The false revenue shortfalls the opponents calculate ignore the expanded base. The current sales tax base will be nearly doubled:This following graphic shows how the individual income tax amount will be replaced.

As you can see, the expanded base plus the existing sales taxes and other general revenue sources would have generated in excess of $7.5 billion, more than the actual FY2010 General Revenue collections. From this amount, the Prop C, Parks and Soils and Conservation would be supplied.

The new group and others apparently believe that if you repeat distortions or falsehoods enough, people will believe them. From their list of supporters, that may be true for some.

We will be pointing out other distortions and untruths in the coming days and weeks.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

It was apparent to most in the state that the special session had died weeks ago. However, being eternal optimists (or just not wanting to be the first to say goodbye), the legislature kept the session on artificial life support. Until yesterday, the taxpayers of the state were very much in danger of a last-minute recovery that might have been good politics for some but bad policy for all.

Everyone is quick to assess blame.  I don’t think that is really important.  What is important is that the legislature actually functioned as it should – sort of. The Aerotropolis/China Hub was a pipe dream that was really no different than past promises of greatness. The difference was that rather than having shallow claims go unchallenged and the masses blissfully unaware of what was happening, grassroots activists got engaged, and the largest part of the Aerotropolis bill was shown to be unnecessary.

In fact, it was shown to not only be unnecessary with millions of square feet of existing warehousing space available but it was exposed to be a nice little fund for just a few developers at the expense of seniors and other taxpayers.  The foibles of the proposal with other elements thrown in are numerous but why beat a dead horse.  At least dead for now.

There were good elements of the economic development bill.  The Senate was on the right track to bring more accountability and caps to huge taxpayer giveaways.  I confess to have supported some of these in the past when they appeared to be productive uses.  It’s kind of one those areas that you wish you knew then what you know and understand now.

It’s difficult for those on the outside to understand and accept that many of the legislators they malign for proposing what many consider not so good ideas, chief among them of government picking winners and losers are really well meaning.  They are sincere in their attempts to make the economic future of our state brighter and more vibrant.  The malady many of those well meaning legislators suffer from is that they really think they can accomplish this through government largess.  They can’t but they truly believe they can.

The House had a valid point as well.  The Senate has increasingly become a body where for good or bad one senator can stop something.  The once limited use of a filibuster has now become a common threat.  I can understand the reluctance of the House not to give one senator carte blanche control over sunsets.

The interesting thing is there already exists an avenue for addressing tax credits.  What members of the House nor the Senate seem to fully understand is that the House Budget Committee or the Senate Appropriations Committee can effectively kill any tax credit program they want just by voting against it.  Just ask the sausage casing folks.

Yes, the special session is concluded. We can now rest peacefully.  At least until January 4, 2012 when our liberties will once again be in danger as the legislature meets for the Second Regular session of the 96th General Assembly.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

You can RSVP to this free event here.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

I’m actually surprised that here we are, nearly one month later, and the legislature is still in special session. The initial media reports echoed a common refrain: that there was consensus on a “deal.” Turns out that there’s anything but a consensus.

What’s the problem? To begin with, there’s the complexity of the “deal.” Phil Brooks, writing in the Joplin Globe, has a very insightful take on some of the complexity (Phil Brooks, columnist: Omnibus bills have ominous risks). It’s well worth reading.

The centerpiece of the special session was the Aerotropolis, or China Hub, legislation. In exchange for sunsetting and capping various tax credits, there was to be a program established wherein new, unneeded warehousing space was to be built and a freight forwarding network established – with up to $360 million in tax credits.

The biggest source of dollars for this new tax credit? That would result from the elimination of a portion of a tax credit that reimburses senior/disabled renters for part of their property taxes. To be fair, this notion came from a recommendation made by the Governor’s Commission on Tax Credit Reform. However, the way it was packaged in the bill (i.e., “taking from seniors and the disabled and giving to wealthy of developers”) seemed not only like poor public policy, but also poor politics!

An amendment to take that portion out barely passed on a 17-16 vote, making many senators angry that they were put in the position to have to vote “for or against seniors and the disabled” on a straight-up vote. Had the amendment not been offered, senators would have been able to vote to take the money from seniors and the disabled and say, “The good outweighed the bad”. . . yadda, yadda.

Once that happened, the deal really came unraveled. The Senate then unilaterally changed the deal by eliminating the warehousing tax credit (which is a good thing) and inserting a new program called Compete Missouri (which is a bad thing).

Some conservative senators voted for Compete Missouri, which sunsets and caps some tax credits while eliminating others, while reconstituting the dollars in a new program that the governor and his Department of Economic Development (DED) would control. These conservative senators believed that the capping and elimination were sufficient to give carte blanche to the governor and DED.

While all of this was going on, the Mamtek issue blew up. This was an eco-devo project that went way wrong. Fortunately, no state dollars were actually expended on it, but the City of Moberly is left holding the bag – to the tune of about $39 million in payments on Obamabonds reportedly handed out to them by the governor. Rudi Keller at the Columbia Daily Tribune has done a series of articles on the Mamtek debacle that clearly indicates that a program like Compete Missouri is not advisable!

Grassroots activists also became involved in the special session. There have been more than 2,000 witness forms turned in between the Senate and House committee hearings against the economic development bills (SB7 and SB8). In case you are wondering, that’s a lot! Combine that with the Mamtek disaster . . . well, let’s just say it didn’t help the proponents of Aerotropolis.

The bottom line is that the House has passed two Senate bills – the Facebook fix and MOSIRA - and the Senate has not passed the House bills – Presidential Primary fix and Local Control.  The special session is lingering on for no good reason.

The Senate should pass the two House bills above and then adjourn the special session. Missourians’ liberties will be much safer when the legislature adjourns!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

This issue was first discussed in our blog post Obamacare Insurance Exchange Comes Through Back Door in Missouri.  The Missouri Watch Dog had reported about the first hearing of the Senate Interim Committee on Health Insurance Exchange and has several videos regarding the testimony. You can find the links in the above blog post.

One of the videos was of the Director of the Insurance Department, John Huff. Mr. Huff is also a member of MHIP, which has several insurance providers as members. Why is all of this important? The resolution that MHIP was about to adopt – again, to accept the federal money to establish the Obamacare health insurance exchange – appears to be heavily driven by Mr. Huff, whose department regulates most of the members of MHIP.

What’s this got to do with the Governor? After all, you might think to yourself, he is not a member of this “quasi-governmental” board. He doesn’t control them. Ah, but you would be mistaken.

The resolution MHIP was about to pass contains this statement:

Whereas Governor Nixon designated John Huff, DIFP Director, HIECC chair and Missouri Health Insurance Exchange Establishment Grant (Establishment Grant), to provide executive leadership to the development f the Exchange Infrastructure and to oversee grant administration; and,

John Huff works directly for Governor Nixon. Governor Nixon can fire John Huff. As the resolution clearly states, Governor Nixon has named John Huff as the chairman of the Health Insurance Exchange Establishment Coordinating Committee as well as other state department heads.

Governor Nixon’s hand-picked leader was about to have a group – of which that hand-picked leader is a member and which more than half of the group’s members is regulated by that hand-picked leader – pass a resolution accepting $21 million of federal funds to establish the Obamacare health insurance exchange in Missouri in total disregard of the legislature’s rejection of the exchange.  Some deny this was the intent.  You can decide for yourself by reading the resolution, which is provided at the end of this post.

On Friday we mass-emailed our members and placed on our blog (URGENT – Stop Obamacare in Missouri!) a call to action to tell the Governor not to sign any Executive Order establishing the Obamacare Health Insurance Exchange.  Many did so and were told the Governor had no intention of signing an executive order to do so.

I believe that to be an accurate statement considering the extreme fallout and pushback he has received as a result of the proposed actions of his hand-picked leader and the MHIP board.

Despite the Governor’s denial that he had any intentions of ignoring the vote of the 71.1% voting to approve Proposition C, MHIP and Mr. Huff would not have taken the actions they were prepared to take without his tacit approval.  If that is not the case, then we should expect that Mr. Huff will be without a job on Monday if not sooner!

Below: MHIP resolution to accept $21 million federal grant to establish the Obamacare Health Insurance Exchange (h/t Reboot Congress)

Here is the action alert we just sent out to our members regarding the Obamacare Health Insurance Exchange in Missouri.  Many have responded they have taken action already! If you are not on our mailing list – click here to join.

You might also be interested in this related blog posting Obamacare Insurance Exchange Comes Through Back Door in Missouri

Yesterday, we wrote about those “Henny Pennys” (you know, the ones who shout, “The sky is falling!” when presented with any new idea) who support not only a big government trough but also an expansion of the trough. Today we are going to take the example of Burnham’s law and apply it to the false information that the Missouri Association of REALTORS® (MAR) is providing to their members about the Missouri Tax Relief Amendment.

Falsehood #1

“MAR believes that any one of these proposals, if passed, would reduce Missouri’s General Revenue by as much as $2 billion, a shortfall of nearly 25% that would devastate the state and our economy.”

The proposal supported by Let Voters Decide has been researched extensively over the past five years. Experts in economics and tax policy have developed a robust model, which clearly demonstrates that – if anything – we are being conservative in the amount of revenue this proposal will generate. A detailed fiscal analysis was provided to the State Auditor in support of the proposals. While there are four versions currently at the Secretary of State’s office, all have essentially the same fiscal outcome. (The differences lie only in certain phrases used for clarification purposes.)

Real-world data, primarily from Tennessee but also drawn from comparisons to other no-income-tax states, have been used in developing and testing the model. The purpose of these comparisons is not to show that every non-income tax state is the same, because certainly they are not (although Tennessee bears some striking similarities to Missouri). The express purpose, rather, was to validate various parts of the model outputs in comparison with real-world examples.

The source of the Realtors’ false claim is the Missouri Budget Project (MBP). MAR and MBP rely on failed economic models whose outcome purposely supports more government spending. MBP is a big-government, pro-wealth-distribution social advocacy group. When I was House Budget Chairman, MBP and their now chief economist made projections that were notoriously inaccurate.

The Governor, House and Senate enter a process that is supposed to result in what is known as the Consensus Revenue Estimate (CRE). To my knowledge, I am the only Budget Chairman to have refused to agree to the CRE because the data was so bad. In his last year of making projections for the state, MBP’s chief economist supported a number that was over 6% off of the actual revenue number! To this day, MBP continues this pattern of inaccurate projections.

MBP has opposed nearly every government reform that involved making government more accountable for its spending, and certainly those reforms that reduced that spending. For example, they opposed Medicaid reform in 2005. Their projections were woefully wrong then – and they are woefully wrong now!

I must say, it comes as a surprise to me that the Missouri Association of Realtors®  would hitch their wagon to such an organization. However, the next-to-last paragraph of the “political analysis” explains that they are willing to throw their own members’ future prosperity under the bus for the “good” of the Association – thereby becoming a prime example of Burnham’s Law.

You can find a few more details in yesterday’s blog posting, Opponents of Tax Reform Running Out of Bottles of Beer on the Wall.

Falsehood #2

“In fact, The Kansas City Star reported on August 21 that proponents of the sales tax scheme acknowledged Missouri would be faced with ‘…cutting spending or — more likely — broadening the sales tax to cover hundreds of goods and services that (the proposals) now exempt. ‘We would have to expand the base,’ said Marc Ellinger, a spokesman for Let Voters Decide…”

The MAR e-mail not only conveniently takes the quote out of context, but also falsely asserts that the proponents of the Missouri Tax Relief Amendment acknowledge that it won’t raise enough funds and cuts will have to be made. This is patently untrue, based on the abovementioned research and modeling.

Falsehood #3

“If any one of the current proposals is enacted, MAR believes that lawmakers will opt to broaden the tax base by repealing the exemptions (e.g. taxes on real estate commissions and rents) rather than raise the tax rate or find other more difficult solutions.  As such, any pledges of protection for those who are now exempted are hollow and cannot be sustained due to the likely huge revenue shortfall.  This conclusion is supported in the Memorandum from MAR’s Sr. Vice President of Governmental Affairs, Sam Licklider.”

Once an exemption is approved by voters, ONLY voters can change it. Apparently, MAR is afraid of the voters. Legislators would be barred from removing any exemption or taxing ANY real estate transactions or commissions.   MAR gives short shrift to the fact that the express Constitutional protection in the proposal further strengthens Amendment 3, which did not protect commissions. In reality, Realtors can only benefit from the Missouri Tax Relief Amendment.

Disagreements are just part of life. However, knowingly making substantial false statements is not and should not be a part of legitimate disagreements. I confess that even after my long tenure in politics, it’s still discouraging to see such outright false statements by organizations who should know better and are expected to have more integrity.

Interestingly, I have run into very few Realtors who don’t agree the proposal is a good one. They may just want to give their association another look, because it is apparent that MAR is not looking out for the members’ best interest.

Again, to paraphrase Burnham: “Eventually, any large organization comes to serve the interests of its permanent staff.”

Realtors have already paid $200,000 to work against better job opportunities for themselves, their kids and their grandkids. Yes, Burnham was on to something.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The folks at Let Voters Decide (LVD) have submitted four new versions of the initiative petitions to repeal the income tax and replace it with a consumer-driven sales tax. They have also withdrawn the original nine petitions previously approved for circulation and signature collection by the Secretary of State.

As you can imagine, supporters of an ever-growing (and ever-spending) big government system are extremely concerned about the fact that once the taxpayers of Missouri understand that the proposal has worked well in Tennessee for decades, resulting in economic growth for that state that has surpassed Missouri’s, they will want to know why we can’t do that too. The answer is: WE CAN!

The usual big government crowd, chiefly represented by the Missouri Budget Project (MBP), continues to send out false information concerning the proposal and its impacts. Their big-government-spending lackeys in the mainstream media eagerly ingest the drivel and then regurgitate it.  This type of “reporting” has become so commonplace that it no longer surprises many.

The Henny Pennys of the world, like MBP, want people to believe that such government services as education, social services and the like will starve if the tax reform proposal is passed. They know that if they can scare you enough through deceptive information, they can get you to vote no.  They are also afraid that when you hear the truth – something they aren’t telling you – you would be inclined to vote for the measure.

Take the false assertion that the tax reform proposal would result in as much as a $2.5 billion shortfall for the state. Not only is it proposterous, it’s flat-out false.

In Fiscal Year 2010, Tennessee netted over $6.3 billion with a 7% sales tax applied to a smaller tax base than that being proposed by LVD folks. Missouri netted $6.7 billion in general revenue from all our revenue sources.

The tax reform proposal does not eliminate all the sources of general revenue.  The proposal eliminates only $4.4 billion of individual income taxes and replaces the current 4.225% sales tax with a 7% one.

You may be saying, “That still sounds like a lot. How would it work?”

Glad you asked.

There you have it.  It’s pretty simple, straightforward and has been proven in Tennessee for decades.

If you aren’t aware, when people tell you government won’t have enough money, the source of that comment usually means they won’t have enough money to do the things they want it to do. Rest assured, government will have plenty of money to do the things it should and must do.

In his famous quote, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “There is nothing to fear, but fear itself”.  His words are as true today in regards to the fear mongers trying to persuade Missourians they should not vote for a brighter future for themselves, their kids, their grandchildren and their state.

Yesterday, the St Louis Post Dispatch listed a summary of the items to be considered during the special session.  While it glosses over some of the points within the various items, it is a good summary:

• Aerotropolis package of $360 million in tax credits to promote development tied to a China air hub

• Missouri Science and Innovation Reinvestment Act, which would create incentives to boost science and technology

• Compete Missouri Initiative, a range of business incentives

• Incentives to lure high-tech data warehouses

• Tax credit reform, based on the work of the Bipartisan Tax Credit Review Commission

• Tax amnesty

• Moving Missouri’s presidential primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March

• Local control of the St. Louis Police Department

• Authorizing tax credits to help attract amateur sporting events to Missouri.

• Revising “Facebook law” barring social media contact between teachers and students

Here is a look at some of the items contained in the call.

Let’s dispose of the easiest one first.  It’s my understanding that the Governor has not officially added the “Facebook law” to his call.  He said something about wanting it “repealed” but if he adds it to the special session, he can’t limit the legislature to just the repeal.  They can in fact amend it as Senator Jane Cunningham wants to do.

The 800 pound gorilla of the session is the Aerotropolis package or China Hub.  The proposal would grant a tax credit over 10 years of $360 million to promote development of warehousing and shipping facilities in support of cargo flights from China.  The Show-Me Institute has written extensively about the excess of empty warehouse and other issues regarding this proposal.

Many groups on the left and right oppose this. In fact, the K&N Patriots are having a rolling tea party the next couple of days at the Capitol.  If interested, you can find more information here.

Our blog post, The Fallacy of Government “Job Creation ” Bills details why tax credits such as Aerotropolis are the wrong approach to fixing “economic” problems.  If the members of the General Assembly are paying attention to their constituents, they will not move very quickly to approve this proposal.

In order to afford the Aerotropolis tax credit, the General Assembly will have to make some changes to existing tax credit programs which is covered in the Governor’s call under “Tax credit reform, based on the work of the Bipartisan Tax Credit Review Commission”.  It is an opportunity to make some real reform but for the most part, that opportunity is going to be mostly wasted aside from some caps and sunsets being placed on some of the tax credits.

Understand that many of the existing tax credits have lobbyists attached to them.  Therefore it’s no surprise that the biggest dollar impact being discussed for elimination is a portion of the tax credit commonly known as Senior Circuit Breaker tax credit that goes to qualifying seniors who receive a refund of portion of their property taxes they pay either directly or through their rent.

Why is it no surprise? There are no high dollar lobbyist associated with protecting the Senior Circuit Breaker program.  The proposal to help fund the Aerotropolis will take most of the money from the Senior Circuit Breaker and redistribute it.  It is true that once this approach was exposed, some of the General Assembly have said that they will add provisions for this money to be used for other “senior” programs. Problem with that is those “reserved” funds can easily be re-directed no matter what is said they will be used for during debate.

The only thing that really needs to be addressed in the Governor’s call for special session is returning Local Control of their police department to the taxpayers of St Louis City. The Civil War which was used as the “excuse” to take over the City’s police department has been over for 146 years.

Some believe that St Louis has a lot of problems that should be corrected before they get their police department back.  I understand what is being said but there is no excuse for the fact that the people who are paying for the police department don’t have direct control of it through their elected officials. If there are problems in St Louis, it’s up to the citizens to fix them.

All in all out the special session is not very special.

We don’t have to go to D.C. to find “good” government ideas about job creation. All of us have a ring-side seat to just such a display, beginning this Tuesday at high noon. That’s when the Missouri General Assembly will convene in a special session called by Governor Nixon for the purpose of passing his “Made in Missouri” jobs package.

There is, of course, some dispute among legislators and the governor about whose idea the jobs package really is. Everyone wants to take credit – but it could very well be one of those “be careful what you ask for you” moments.

Both the president’s jobs plan and the “Made in Missouri” jobs package are based upon a very basic, demonstrably false notion that government actually creates private-sector employment.  

Government tax credits, subsidies, etc. do little – actually, pretty much nothing - to offset the burden of government laws and resulting regulations. Government entities are always looking to offset those impacts. Of course, those same entities will not admit that those laws and over-regulation are the reason they need to provide “incentives” in the first place.

The president’s jobs plan will undoubtedly renew his call for “fair share.” You can count on the fact that he will continue to think that those who are already paying the most must pay more, and that those who pay nothing (up to 51% of the American households) should still pay nothing to support their “federal family.” These notions will undoubtedly be a plank in his no-jobs plan.

Since the president’s track record on “job creation” is not even good enough to be called dismal, for the country’s economic well-being, Congress should politely say, “Nice speech” – then go forth and do what’s needed to really get jobs going: cut government spending, reign in government regulations, and let the private sector work without government screwing it up!

But even here in Missouri, we see the continued trend to provide incentives rather than eliminate government restrictions on the private sector. If tax credits worked, the 60-plus credits that exist today should place Missouri as one of the top economic forces in the country! However, it’s the exact opposite. Missouri consistently ranks about 48th in gross state product. More of the same (albeit repackaged ideas) will not improve our state standing or our economy.  Instead, we should be implementing tax reform that includes eliminating the individual income tax!

And, just as the president’s plan includes his idea of “fair share,” so does the “Made in Missouri” package. In order to be able to “afford” new tax credits, some tax credits are being capped and sunsets applied, which is a very good start. At least one is being eliminated.

The tax credit commonly known as the Senior Circuit Breaker was first passed in 1973.  It was to provide seniors some tax relief for increasing property tax burdens even back in those days. The amount to qualify and receive has been increased, but neither has been sufficiently adjusted to match inflation.

The “Made in Missouri” package includes the proposal to take away this tax credit from seniors who are renters. Now, this makes perfect sense from a government perspective. After all, government refuses to acknowledge that taxes are passed along to the end consumers and not paid by companies or, in this case, by landlords. The thinking is that renters obviously are not paying property taxes since they rent. It’s a false premise and a blind excuse for providing revenue to others by taking it from seniors.

The Senior Circuit Breaker tax credit should be reveiwed comprehensively – as should all tax credits.  However, most of the other tax credits have lobbyist attached to them and are too hard to change.  Instead the proposal supported by the Governor and legislative leaders is to go after the tax credit without lobbyists.

This approach is as shameful as the president not acknowledging or demanding that a fair-share tax model would require more people to pay some amount of federal income tax and not just make those who already pay the most pay more!

It’s my experience that most Missourians still believe that projects like the China Hub will happen if it is economically feasible and government gets out of the way.  They don’t believe that giving away their tax money via subsidies (a.k.a. tax credits) is the answer.

We will see if the legislature and governor agree.  I’m not holding my breath!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

We will have a very special guest Tennessee, Senator Brian Kelsey. Senator Kelsey will give you first hand experience about how the Tennessee model is working well for Tennessee and that it can work well in Missouri too!

We can all relate to those who want to stick with the status quo. After all, it’s comfortable, even if it’s not perfect. We know how to operate within the confines of the status quo. Heck, we even know how to manipulate and push the buttons under the status quo. Why would we want to change to something that we don’t know how to manipulate?

The latter is the primary objection of most opponents of the tax reform proposals. Oh sure, they will claim it’s not their prime objective. They will even use such claims as “it’s not enough revenue” or “it hurts the poor” or “education will suffer.” All of these arguments are demonstrably untrue, as we point out in Opponents of Tax Reform Running Scared & Away from Facts! and other posts on our blog.

Then you have local government associations that provide false, misleading or half-truth information to their members, thereby getting them all riled up. Local governments like the status quo too. They don’t want anything to upset their apple carts. They especially don’t want anything that actually might get their citizens to question their operations!

In our last blog posting on this topic, we debunked these notions and demonstrated that the state will generate more than adequate revenue to maintain its “support” of local governments. Many taxpayers are unaware of the fact that not only do they pay taxes to their local governments, but some of the taxes they pay to the state go to local governments as well.  Some of these “payments,” such as reimbursement of jail costs paid by counties to house state prisoner,s are legitimate. Others may not be so cut-and-dried.

The tax reform proposal will not cause the state to cut funds to any of these programs. In fact, the proposal will ensure that a more stable revenue source exists to continue paying the programs. But what about local tax revenue collections? How will they be impacted by the proposal? The simple answer is: they won’t!

Here is what the initiatives say about local government sales tax rates:

Here’s what all that legalese means: Every political subdivision with a sales tax will have it recalculated on the new broader base and under NO CONDITION will they collect less money than they did for the average of the last five (5) years. No cuts in services. No cuts in programs. No less money!

Unfortunately, that’s not what local government units are being told by associations that they pay YOUR tax money to join!  

Even entities such as schools, who do not collect sales taxes, are being told to object to making Missouri the economic engine of the Midwest! Not only will the state be better positioned to continue funding and even increase funding for education, but a significant source of that funding – the School District Trust Fund – is given constitutional protection rather than the statutory authorization it currently possesses.

Alas, too many political subdivisions are unwilling to find out for themselves what the tax reform proposal will do not only to provide a more stable source of revenue for the state, but also a better quality of life for the constituents they represent. Fortunately, there are some good folks out there, such as Camden County Commissioner Bev Thomas, who have taken the time to find out firsthand what this is all about – and support it!

So, if you hear an alderman, city councilman, mayor, county commissioner, school board member, superintendent, etc. objecting to the tax reform proposal, you should ask, “Have you read it for yourself or is this just the talking points you have been given by the people you are paying my tax dollars to work against me?”  OK, if you desire to be nicer, you can rephrase the question, but it’s fair and true!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Carl on the Radio

Opponents of the reforms only have one weapon to fight against the tax reform proposal – fear proving John Adams correct.

They deploy this weapon often and without any qualms concerning the facts. Since they aren’t interested in providing the facts about the proposal, I’ll be glad to do it for them.

The first and most preposterous accusation is that eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a consumer driven sales tax will “will either bankrupt the state or, in the alternative, bankrupt the poor and the working lower and middle classes.” Never mind they offer no substantiation to this claim other than incorrectly stating that a “government relations” person had made an analysis of the proposals. The Star and others can’t substantiate this false allegation.  But we can show you that it is a false statement.

Tennessee has been operating under a very similar model.  If as the opponents contend Tennessee and its citizens would be much worse off than those in Missouri.  It just isn’t the case.  Here is a graphic that compares the income stratification of the two states.

As you can see, the low income and middle classes in Tennessee are not significantly larger or smaller than in Missouri.  But what about “shifting” the burden from the so-called “rich” to the middle class and “poor”.  Not true either. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data shows that the more you make the more you consume.  When you take into account that necessities won’t be taxed, it’s actually better for the poor and middle class.

Here’s a graphic using tax return data applied to the proposal providing an example of the instant increase in take home pay for every Missourian:

You might be saying, ‘alright so it doesn’t bankrupt the poor and middle class but THEY say the state won’t have enough money for education and other programs.’ Once again THEY are wrong.

Tennessee collected $6.3 billion with a 7% statewide sales tax in FY2010.  The tax reform proposal in Missouri will be applied to a slightly higher base than Tennessee’s.  Here is what Missouri’s FY2010 General Revenue consisted of:

As the chart indicates, the only thing the tax reform proposal replaces is the $4.4 billion in individual income tax collections. So how do we replace the $4.4 billion?

When you consider the other sources of general revenue remain unaffected it’s obvious that the state is not going to go bankrupt, schools will not close and people will not be laying dead on the streets.  You would think that these stock “objections” to almost every reform proposed for government reform would change over the years but they don’t.  Why? Fear is a powerful emotion.

I am an optimist.  I still believe that there might actually be an honest discussion of the facts regarding the tax reform proposal before citizens vote on it. If an honest discussion does occur, voters in Missouri will adopt the proposal moving Missouri into a commanding economic position.

Yes, I am an optimist but given the past history of opponents of reform of almost any kind that changes the rules in favor of those paying the taxes, I’m not holding my breath that an honest discussion will actually occur.

We will have a very special guest Tennessee, Senator Brian Kelsey. Senator Kelsey will give you first hand experience about how the Tennessee model is working well for Tennessee and that it can work well in Missouri too!

MHIP was established by the legislature in 1991 as a quasi-governmental operation. Its purpose was to provide insurance to “high-risk” individuals; in other words, people who could not get insurance through regular channels had an option to get it through MHIP.  Last year, a federal high-risk pool was established to cover those with pre-existing conditions who could not get insurance otherwise. MHIP offers programs to assist people in that program as well. It was never intended to be a conduit for a general insurance exchange.

So you can imagine the surprise of many legislators, not to mention the over 71% of Missourians who voted for the Health Care Freedom Act in August 2010, when the MHIP suddenly decided that accepting the $21 million federal grant to establish the Obamacare health insurance exchange was a mission of the organization! The action leaves many scratching their heads. However, after talking with some senators, the picture is beginning to come into focus.

House Bill 609 was sponsored in the Missouri House by Representative Chris Molendorp. While some disagree, I believe this was a good-faith effort to stave off federal imposition of a one-size-fits-all health exchange. This would result in the feds making many decisions for Missouri. I do not agree that it’s an “either we do it or the feds will” scenario. However, everyone in the House thought it was, and the bill passed unanimously.

Fortunately, many in the Senate, such as Senators Cunningham, Lembke and Schaaf, recognized that the insurance exchange was not the way to go.  The Senate managed to stop the bill from reaching the Governor’s desk.

Big government being what it is – an entity with an amazing ability to find ways to grow even when stymied in the most direct ways – has implemented an end-around strategy for the health exchange. The MHIP board consists of nine (9) members. Five (5) of these members are part of the health insurance/plan business. That’s reasonable, given the nature of the mission of MHIP.  However, one of the members is the Director of the Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration, John M. Huff.  You may ask, “So what?”

Mr. Huff regulates the insurance industry in the state. He can make, break or cause a lot of pain to insurers in Missouri. Now imagine, the guy who exercises a lot of control over your industry comes to the board you sit on (and happens to also be a member of that board) and tells you what a wonderful idea he has.  I know none of us would think to ourselves, “Hmm, this is our regulator. He can do bad things to my company. Maybe I should go along with his idea.” Add to that the bovine fecal matter that is used to sell Obamacare to the healthcare industry and voila, welcome to the Missouri Health Insurance Exchange!

Recently, we have seen where other “quasi-governmental” entities have been in the news for questionable practices.  Most notably, the Missouri Employment Mutual (MEM) company has used its “quasi-governmental” status to avoid public and state scrutiny, until now.  The common factor between these two is that Governor Nixon appoints the board members.

In the case of MEM, he isn’t suppose to, but does. Now he has ownership of the company’s problems. He definitely has ownership of accepting $21 million to establish a healthcare exchange that the people of Missouri do not support. The question is, what is he going to do about it? Is he going to stand by and allow the MHIP to flaunt questionable authority in defiance of the legislature and people of Missouri or is he going to step in and say, “Wait a minute – you can’t do that”?

Missouri is watching, Governor!

Not only has Tennessee “existed” without an income tax system, it has flourished. Tennessee has out-performed Missouri in almost every economic measure. Two videos help tell the Tennessee story and explain why Missouri would be better eliminating our income tax and moving to a consumer-driven sales tax.

The first video features the Tennessee Comptroller.  He discusses the basics of state budgets and revenue and how the lack of an individual income tax has prevented the current economic downturn from impacting Tennessee as badly as states like Missouri, which primarily rely on an income tax.

The second video features Tennessee State Senator Brian Kelsey. Senator Kelsey sits on a number of key fiscal committees in the Tennessee Senate. He also is the chief proponent of a constitutional amendment to ensure that Tennessee never has an income tax. Senator Kelsey discusses how Tennessee is doing economically, and emphasizes how this success in attracting new business to the state.

Our neighbors in Tennessee have not only “made it” without an income tax, they have prospered! If Tennessee can do it, so can Missouri!

The first event is the NullifyNow conference Kansas City. We will be there with a booth and speaking at the event.  Go to NullifyNow to signup!

Also in the Kansas City area, the Reagan Ranch celebration is taking place late Saturday.

Both should be great events!  Hope to see you there!

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL.

So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. (EDITOR’S NOTE: The President does submit a budget for Congress to consider. But Congress formulates and passes the budget and the President signs or vetoes.)

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi& Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until…

Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

This is your chance to make a difference.

Stay Focused, Connected, Informed & Inspired.

Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants!

Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.”  John Wayne

This is not the “deal” we needed. It only temporarily addresses the problem. By the end of the “deal” timeframe – 2021 – our debt will be somewhere between 76 and 100% of our economic activity. Prior to that time, it is highly likely the United States’ credit rating will be downgraded.

We are hearing constant repetition of the focus-group-tested phrase “balanced approach.” President Obama’s idea of such an approach is highlighting oil and gas subsidies and taxes on the rich. And who could forget the corporate jet tax break, which accounts for less than 0.2% of the whole, but makes it sound like the President is standing up for the “little guys” without planes?

Rest assured, all the approved messages are expressly designed to stir emotional reactions from voters. Unfortunately for our country, emotionally charged phrases don’t solve our spending problem.

President Obama says it’s only “fair” – yet another charged word – that these groups should be gouged to pay for his definition of fair and balanced. The President never addresses the fact that 51% of us are already not paying ANY income tax. What’s fair about that?

None of us expect someone making $20,000 to pay the same amount of income tax as someone making $200,000. But it is not unreasonable to expect that both pay something toward supporting their country’s operation. If the tax burden is too large for them, then the government should stop spending so much!

The “big government needs to spend more money on social programs” crowd says that lower-income people spend a larger percentage of their incomes on taxes such as sales taxes. This argument may be mathematically correct but the argument that it means they are already paying their fair share isn’t.

The fact is, very few of the taxes the big government crowd counts go to support the operational budget of the national government. Instead, they count gas taxes, sales taxes and property – taxes most of which are state and local in nature.

We can legitimately argue that included in the cost of goods purchased by low income families are all the income taxes and regulations forced upon businesses and passed on to the American public by their federal government. You won’t hear the big government crowd make that argument, because it conflicts with other points they want to make on tax fairness. Additionally, it would mean that they would have to admit that those of us in the 49% who are paying income taxes would be double-taxed!

Fairness, Mr. President, will be when everyone is making a contribution toward supporting the federal government via their income tax. You can start by eliminating or significantly reducing the amount of wealth distribution taking place via welfare programs. One of your predecessors and the father of the of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, said there was no provision in the Constitution for such expenditures.

Republicans are not blameless. They spend too much on tax breaks when they should be making the tax code better through the elimination of the income tax and onerous regulations. Regulations and out-of-control bureaucracies are hurting our economy. Changes in tax code and the elimination of costly and questionable regulations will do far more to get our economy rolling again than any stimulus or tax break!

The so-called debt ceiling “deal” had something for everyone — except the taxpaying public. The few actual cuts that exist are quickly overcome by the fake cuts in increased spending. Ronald Reagan made a similar deal with tax increases and spending cuts. Guess what? The tax increases were put in place, but the spending cuts never happened.

The “deal” did nothing to address the long term problem of spending.  It doesn’t address the fundamental, politically unpopular need to reduce actual spending not just future increases in it.  If you cut real spending now, the future increases in it will be less.  That’s a win/win for all of us.

The “Bush tax cuts” are noticeably missing from the equation. And while the “deal” may not include specific tax increases, it does nothing to stop the tax increases scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2013. If the Republican leaders in Washington were truly concerned about tax increases, they would have fought to make the “Bush tax cuts” a permanent part of the deal.

I’m not in the camp that says all those who voted for the “deal” are evil-doers in need of elimination from office. To be sure, there are several whose job security should be questioned, but certainly not all. I don’t believe Congressman Allen West (R-FL) voted for the “deal” for any malicious reason, but rather because he was convinced it was the best he could get at this time. Conversely, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver’s (D-MO) NO vote doesn’t automatically put him in the “good guy” column, either!

The “deal” was not a good one.  The U.S. was not going to default on its debts, but, to be sure, the President would have made the “withholds” as painful as possible. He would have made the Republicans out to be the bad guys, ignoring his own party’s culpability in driving up our national debt.

We need statesmen who are more concerned about the future of their constituents than about their own political careers. Our elected officials owe us an explanation for their vote cast on our behalf. We need voters who will take the time to understand why the Congressman Wests of the world voted “yes,” and figure out if the explanation is good enough.

And, if the reasoning is not sound, I would presume you will be voting for someone else. As I explained to those who held a different opinion from mine when I cast a vote, that is the way our system works!